Delhi District Court
Manoj Yadav vs Rahis on 24 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHELLY ARORA
DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
PO MACT (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No. 382/2018
FIR no. 1231/2017
PS : Noida Sector 49, Gautam Budh Nagar
U/s : 279/338/427 IPC
CNR No.DLSE010011362018
Manoj Yadav
S/o Sh. Inder Pal
R/o H. No. 32, Sorkha Jahidabad
Gautam Budh Nagar,
Sarfabad, UP.
....Petitioner
Versus
1. Rahis
S/o Gufur Mohd.
R/o Village Amaw, PO Badaka Gaon,
PS Barhaj, Deoria.
....R-1/ driver
2. Ayoob Khan
R/o H. No. 311, Village Tyedi,
13 Vissa 2, Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh.
....R-2/ owner
3. Royal Sunderam General Ins. Co. Ltd.
Unit No. 801 A, 8th Floor, Devika Tower,
Nehru Place, New Delhi.
.....R-3/ Ins. Co.
MACT No. 382/2018 Manoj Yadav Vs. Rahis Page No. 1 of 27
Date of accident : 11.12.2017
Date of filing of petition : 13.02.2018
Date of Decision : 24.05.2025
AWARD
1. Claim Petition under Section 166 and 140 M.V. Act was
filed on 13.02.2018 by Sh. Manoj Yadav (hereinafter called the
claimant/injured) on account of injury sustained by him, while
driving motorcycle bearing Registration No. UP 16BL 6147
(hereinafter referred as accidental vehicle) in a road traffic
accident which took place on 11.12.2017 allegedly due to rash
and negligent driving of vehicle bearing Registration No. UP
14CT 5356 (hereinafter referred as Offending Vehicle), driven by
Sh.Rahis (hereinafter referred as Respondent No.1), owned by
Sh. Ayoob Khan (hereinafter referred as Respondent No.2) and
insured with M/s. Royal Sunderam Gen. Ins Co. Ltd. (hereinafter
referred as Respondent No.3/Insurance Company).
Brief facts as averred in the Claim Petition:
2. On 11.12.2017, at about 02:00 PM, the claimant/injured
while commuting by motorcycle along with his brother Amit
Yadav, was allegedly hit by speedy and rashly driven truck on
intersection (Choraha) of Sectors 113 and 116, Noida Uttar
Pradesh causing serious injuries to the claimant. FIR (No.
1231/2017) was lodged on 19.12.2017 by Shri Inderpal Yadav,
father of the injured, at Police Station Sector 49, Gautam Budh
Nagar, against driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration
number UP 14 CT 5356. Investigation was undertaken. Driver of
the offending truck was charge sheeted for causing injuries upon
MACT No. 382/2018 Manoj Yadav Vs. Rahis Page No. 2 of 27
the person of claimant on account of speedy and rash driving of
the truck on a public way.
3. It is contended that injured was engaged in the business of
milk supply in Delhi and was earning approximately Rs.30,000
per month. A compensation amount of Rs.1,37,00,000 along with
interest at the rate of 12 % has been claimed by the claimant for
the injuries sustained in the said accident.
Proceedings:
4. Upon service of notice, all the contesting parties appeared
before the Tribunal.
Reply:
5. Reply was filed by R-1 & R-2 wherein general defences
were taken denying the accident as well as averments made in the
petition.
6. Written Statement on behalf of insurance company also
filed wherein it is pointed that there was a substantial
unexplained delay of about 8 days in filing of FIR. It is stated
that injured was a pillion rider on accidental motorcycle and
driver, owner and insurance company of said motorcycle should
be made proper party in the present petition. While conceding the
valid and effective insurance policy as on the date of accident,
other general defences were taken.
Issues:
7. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were
framed order dated 15.11.2018:
MACT No. 382/2018 Manoj Yadav Vs. Rahis Page No. 3 of 27
i). Whether the injured Manoj Yadav suffered injuries
in a road traffic accident on 11.12.2017 due to rash
and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no. UP 14CT
5356 being driven by R-1, owned by R-2 & insured
with R-3? OPP.
ii). Whether the injured is entitled to any compensation,
if so, to what extent and from whom?OPP
iii). Relief.
Evidence:
8. Matter was then listed for PE. PW-1 Manoj Yadav/ injured
tendered his evidentiary affidavit as Ex.PW1/A and relied upon
certified copy of charge sheet, FIR and Site Plan as Ex.PW1/1
(colly), copy of Aadhar Card Ex.PW1/2, Copy of Discharge
Summary Mark A, Original Medical Bills amounting to
Rs.12,69,659/- Ex.PW1/3 (colly), AIIMS Prescription Report
Ex.PW1/4, Original Ambulance Bills Ex.PW1/5, Photocopy of
medicines bills Mark B, Original Disability Assessment
Certificate issued from CMO, Gautam Budh Nagar, UP
Ex.PW1/6, Copy of driving license of driver of motorcycle
bearing Reg. No. UP 16BL 6147 Mark C and copy of Mediclaim
Policy Mark D.
9. PW-1 was cross examined by counsel for Insurance
Company as well as counsel for R-1 & 2.
10. Petitioner Evidence was then closed. Matter was listed for
Respondent Evidence, however, none of the respondents chose to
adduce evidence. Matter was then listed for Final Arguments.
Final Arguments:
11. Final Arguments were advanced by Counsel for the
MACT No. 382/2018 Manoj Yadav Vs. Rahis Page No. 4 of 27
claimant as well as counsel for insurance company. None
appeared on behalf of R-1 & 2 to advance arguments.
12. Counsel for claimant filed Written Submissions along with
summary of medical bills and computation in the prescribed
form. He argued that the injured himself has testified about the
speedy and rash driving of offending vehicle having caused the
accident. He further argued that the injured suffered serious
injuries due to accident and has been under treatment since then.
It is further argued that he was married just one month prior to
the accident which has rendered him incapable of sexual activity.
Counsel for claimant also stated that injured has not been in a
medical position to continue to run the business of milk supply.
He also pointed that the injured has suffered substantial disability
which has adversely affected his earning efficiency. He has
contended that the functional disability of injured should be
treated as 100%. Counsel for claimant has also conceded that the
entire medical expense was covered under the health insurance
scheme, however, he argued that same cannot be deducted from
the compensation amount. Ld. Counsel for claimant also relied
upon the case of (i) The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mrs.
Dolly Satish Gandhi & Anr. First Appeal No. 1344 of 2014 ; (ii)
Ranjeet & Anr. Vs. Abdul Kayam Neb & Ors SLP ©
10351/2019; and, (iii) Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandram Vs.
Mukesh Kumar Yadav & Ors.
13. Counsel for the insurance company, on the other hand, has
conceded that he has no statutory defence. However, he
highlighted that there is an unexplained delay of 8 days in
registration of FIR. He has also pointed out that the brother of
MACT No. 382/2018 Manoj Yadav Vs. Rahis Page No. 5 of 27
injured travelling with him at the time of accident, allegedly did
not receive any injury which puts the entire factum of accident in
doubt. He also pointed out that no medical expert has been
examined to support the contention that the injured has been
rendered incapable of sexual or reproductive activity or that his
business for supply of milk had to be shut down because of
disability. Counsel for insurance company has also stated that the
matter has been filed by claimant in collusion with R-1 & 2 to
extract compensation illegally. He further argued that all the
medical bills have been duly reimbursed by claimant through
medi-claim policy.
Discussion:
14. On the basis of material on record, evidence adduced and
arguments addressed, issue wise findings are as under :
Issue No.1
"Whether the injured Manoj Yadav suffered injuries in a road
traffic accident on 11.12.2017 due to rash and negligent
driving of vehicle bearing no. UP 14CT 5356 being driven
by R-1, owned by R-2 & insured with R-3? OPP."
15. PW-1 / injured Manoj Yadav injured himself appeared and
deposed that on 11.12.2017 at about 02.00 PM, while he was
commuting by his motorcycle along-with his brother that a Hyva
Truck, driven speedily and rashly rammed into his motorcycle
causing serious injuries to him. During cross-examination,
claimant denied the suggestion that he did not suffer any injury
due to the accident, however, admitted that there is no medical
record of the injuries sustained by his brother due to the accident.
He also admitted that he did not possess any driving license to
drive two -wheeler. As such, the complaint made by father of
MACT No. 382/2018 Manoj Yadav Vs. Rahis Page No. 6 of 27
injured only mentions that his two sons were riding the
motorcycle without any clarity as to who was at wheels at the
time of accident. Certified copy of MLC was also filed by
counsel for claimant alongwith application which mentions about
history of Road Traffic Accident between a stationary bike and
truck and that the wheels of the truck ran over the body of the
injured. It also mentions the date and time of arrival as
11.12.2017 at about 03.50 PM in Metro Hospital. Medical
records including Initial Assessment and Discharge Summary
have been filed as part of evidence which mentions the date and
time of admission in Metro Hospital on 11.12.2017 at 04.20 PM
with multiple serious fractures. It also mentions that the patient
was brought with complaint of pain in abdomen with
hypovolumic shock which itself signifies huge blood loss on
account of the accident. Therefore, there is no reason to doubt
that an accident indeed took place wherein victim suffered
extensive injuries. It is evident that victim was admitted in
hospital in a very serious condition and underwent life saving
procedure on the date of accident itself. He was also put on
mechanical ventilation post operative procedure and was
administered multiple units of blood transfusion. As per the
Discharge Summary, victim remained hospitalized for about 15
days post accident. It also explains as to why father or brother of
the injured would not have been in a position to approach the
Local Police Station with a formal complaint for registration of
the FIR. It is settled that the genuineness of the contents of
complaint is more important than the promptness thereof. It is
settled that mere delay in filing of complaint leading to
registration of FIR is not fatal to the compensation claim.
MACT No. 382/2018 Manoj Yadav Vs. Rahis Page No. 7 of 27
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravi vs. Badrinarayan &
Ors., 2011 (4) SCC 693 has discussed the issue of delay in
lodging the FIR and observed as under :
"20. It is well-settled that delay in lodging FIR cannot be a
ground to doubt the claimant's case. Knowing the Indian
conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to
first rush to the Police Station immediately after an accident.
Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of
kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance
to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the Police
Station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act
mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with the
Police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to
deny justice to the victim. In cases of delay, the courts are
required to examine the evidence with a closer scrutiny and in
doing so; the contents of the FIR should also be scrutinized
more carefully. If court finds that there is no indication of
fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered to
implicate innocent persons then, even if there is a delay in
lodging the FIR, the claim case cannot be dismissed merely on
that ground.
21. The purpose of lodging the FIR in such type of cases is
primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of
criminal offences. Lodging of FIR certainly proves factum of
accident so that the victim is able to lodge a case for
compensation but delay in doing so cannot be the main ground
for rejecting the claim petition. In other words, although
lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases,
delay in lodging the same should not be treated as fatal for
such proceedings, if claimant has been able to demonstrate
satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. There could be variety of
reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgment of FIR. Unless
kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of
tranquility of mind and are composed to lodge it, even if, there
is delay, the same deserves to be condoned. In such
circumstances, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more
significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent
reasons.
16. During cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for insurance
company, suggestion was given that accident did not occur with
the offending vehicle and that injured was not wearing any
helmet at the time of accident. It was also declined that there was
no medical record of his brother as he was not driving the
MACT No. 382/2018 Manoj Yadav Vs. Rahis Page No. 8 of 27
accidental vehicle at the time of accident and that there was no
negligence on the part of the offending vehicle. It is noted that
certain photographs of the offending vehicle purportedly taken on
the date of accident itself, have been placed on record, as such,
complaint (on the basis of which FIR was registered) filed by the
father of injured mentions the details about the offending vehicle.
It is also evident that the respondent no.1 as driver of the
offending vehicle has been charge-sheeted for causing the
accident on account of speedy and rash driving. Relevant is to
place reliance upon judgment in the case of National Insurance
Co. Vs. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 Delhi, of Hon'ble Delhi
High Court, which held that completion of investigation and
filing of charge-sheet are sufficient proof of negligence of the
driver of the offending vehicle for the purpose of compensation.
The observations therein were validated and reiterated in a recent
pronouncement by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil
Appeal Arising out of SLP(C) No. 10351/2019) titled Ranjeet &
Anr. vs. Abdul Kayam Neb & Anr. (DoD : 25.02.2025), wherein
following observations were made :
"4. It is settled in law that once a charge sheet has been
filed and the driver has been held negligent, no further
evidence is required to prove that the bus was being
negligently driven by the bus driver. Even if the
eyewitnesses are not examined, that will not be fatal to
prove the death of the deceased due to negligence of the bus
driver."
17. Mechanical Inspection Report is dated 22.12.2017,
whereas accident took place on 11.12.2017 and the FIR was
registered on 19.12.2017. The report notes extensive accidental
impact damages on the motorcycle as well as on the offending
vehicle, corroborating the deposition of PW1 Manoj Yadav.
MACT No. 382/2018 Manoj Yadav Vs. Rahis Page No. 9 of 27
Further, respondent no.1 has not specifically and categorically
denied that the accident did not take place with the offending
vehicle. In the reply, there are only general denials to the
averments in the petition. Respondent no.1 has not opted to set
up any particular defence either in respect of identification of
offending vehicle or his involvement thereof or even in respect of
his reckless driving as the cause of accident. Furthermore, R-1 &
2 have chosen not to lead any evidence to deny or the set up a
case to contradict the affirmations made by the eye witness about
the identification of the offending vehicle in question. It is also
settled that if driver of offending vehicle does not enter the
witness box, an adverse inference can be drawn against him as
observed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of
Cholamandlam insurance company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh 2009 (3)
AD Delhi 310.
18. It has been held in catena of cases that negligence has to be
decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and
a holistic evaluation of evidence required to ascertain rashness
and negligence. It is also settled that proceedings under the
Motor Vehicle Act are not akin to the proceedings in a Civil Suit
and hence, strict rules of evidence are not applicable {support
drawn from the cases of Bimla Devi & Ors. Vs. Himachal Road
Transport Corporation & Ors, (2009) 13 SC 530, Kaushnumma
Begum and others v/s New India Assurance Company Limited,
2001 ACJ 421 SC, and from the case of National Insurance Co.
Ltd Vs. Pushpa Rana cited as 2009 ACJ 287}.
19. Detailed appreciation of evidence led by contesting parties
coupled with Criminal Case Record relied by claimant shows that
MACT No. 382/2018 Manoj Yadav Vs. Rahis Page No. 10 of 27
accident is attributed only to speedy and rash driving of
offending vehicle. Issue No.1 is thus decided accordingly, in
favour of the petitioner.
Issue No. 2
"Whether the injured is entitled to any compensation and if
so, to what extent and from whom? OPP"
20. Section 168 MV Act enjoins the Claim Tribunals to hold
an enquiry into the claim to make an effort determining the
amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and
reasonable. Same is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
"(1) Award of the Claims Tribunal.--On receipt of an
application for compensation made under section 166, the
Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the application to
the insurer and after giving the parties (including the insurer)
an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim
or, as the case may be, each of the claims and, subject to the
provisions of section 162 may make an award determining the
amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and
specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall
be paid and in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall
specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or
owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by
all or any of them, as the case may be: Provided that where
such application makes a claim for compensation under
section 140 in respect of the death or permanent disablement
of any person, such claim and any other claim (whether made
in such application or otherwise) for compensation in respect
of such death or permanent disablement shall be disposed of
in accordance with the provisions of Chapter X.
(2) The Claims Tribunal shall arrange to deliver copies of the
award to the parties concerned expeditiously and in any case
within a period of fifteen days from the date of the award.
(3) When an award is made under this section, the person who
is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall,
within thirty days of the date of announcing the award by the
Claims Tribunal, deposit the entire amount awarded in such
manner as the Claims Tribunal may direct."
21. Before putting in frame the position of law, it is noted that
the process of determining the compensation by the court is
MACT No. 382/2018 Manoj Yadav Vs. Rahis Page No. 11 of 27
essentially a very difficult task and can never be an exact science.
Perfect compensation is hardly possible, more so in claims of
injury and disability. (As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Sidram Vs. The Divisional Manager United
India Insurance Company Ltd, SLP (Civil) No. 19277 of 2019).
22. The basic principle in assessing motor vehicle
compensation claims, is to place the victim in as near a position
as she or he was in before the accident, with other compensatory
directions for loss of amenities and other payments. These
general principles have been stated and reiterated in several
decisions. [Support drawn from Govind Ram Yadav vs. New
India Insurance Company Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683] .
23. This Tribunal has been tasked with determination of just
compensation. The observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in Divisional controller, KSRTC vs. Mahadeva Shetty &
Anr., (2003) 7 SCC 197, needs mention here (para 15):
"Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation
must be "just" and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of
profit but the same should not be a pittance. The courts and
tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and
quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just.
What would be "just" compensation is a vexed question.
There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for
measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure of
damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical
calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and
circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if
any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing
compensation has to be considered in the background of
"just" compensation which is the pivotal consideration.
Though by use of the expression "which appears to it to be
just", a wide discretion is vested in the Tribunal, the
determination has to be rational, to be done by a judicious
approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and
arbitrariness.. ..."
24. Delineating the damages as pecuniary and non pecuniary,
MACT No. 382/2018 Manoj Yadav Vs. Rahis Page No. 12 of 27
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in case of R. D. Hattangadi Vs.
Pest Control (India) Pvt Ltd, 1995 AIR 755 , made following
observations:
"9....while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a
victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed
separately as pecuniary damages and special damages.
Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually
incurred and which are capable of being calculated in
terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those
which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical
calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary
damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant:
(i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to
the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non-
pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i)
damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering,
already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii)
damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life
which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of
injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii)
damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account
of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is
shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort,
disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life."
25. Certain principles for delineating just compensation were
enumerated in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr.,
(2011) 1 SCC 343, by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
Following observations are relevant in the context:
"40.General principles relating to compensation in injury
cases
5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the
Act", for short) makes it clear that the award must be just,
which means that compensation should, to the extent
possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the
position prior to the accident. The object of awarding
damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of
wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable
and equitable manner. The court or the Tribunal shall have
to assess the damages objectively and exclude from
consideration any speculation or fancy, though some
conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its
consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be
MACT No. 382/2018 Manoj Yadav Vs. Rahis Page No. 13 of 27
compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss
which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means
that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full
life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he
would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to
earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. [See
C.K. Subramania Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair [(1969) 3
SCC 64 : AIR 1970 SC 376] , R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest
Control (India) (P) Ltd. [(1995) 1 SCC 551 : 1995 SCC
(Cri) 250] and Baker v. Willoughby [1970 AC 467 : (1970)
2 WLR 50 : (1969) 3 All ER 1528 (HL)] .]
6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in
personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment,
hospitalisation, medicines, transportation,
nourishing food, and miscellaneous
expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which
the injured would have made had he not been
injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of
treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of
permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as
a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects
of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of
normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation
will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a)
and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury,
where there is specific medical evidence
corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that
compensation will be granted under any of the
heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss
of future earnings on account of permanent
disability, future medical expenses, loss of
amenities (and/or loss of prospects of
marriage) and loss of expectation of life.
7. Assessment of pecuniary damages under Item (i) and
MACT No. 382/2018 Manoj Yadav Vs. Rahis Page No. 14 of 27
under Item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they
involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily
ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of
future medical expenses--Item (iii)--depends upon
specific medical evidence regarding need for further
treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non-pecuniary
damages--Items (iv), (v) and (vi)--involves determination
of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such
as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by
the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the
claimant. Decisions of this Court and the High Courts
contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads,
if necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the
assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of
permanent disability--Item (ii)(a). We are concerned with
that assessment in this case.
Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent
disability
8. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to
perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a
human being. Permanent disability refers to the residuary
incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body, found
existing at the end of the period of treatment and
recuperation, after achieving the maximum bodily
improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the
remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to
the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on
account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of
the period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent
disability can be either partial or total. Partial permanent
disability refers to a person's inability to perform all the
duties and bodily functions that he could perform before
the accident, though he is able to perform some of them
and is still able to engage in some gainful activity. Total
permanent disability refers to a person's inability to
perform any avocation or employment related activities as
a result of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may
arise from motor accident injuries, are of a much wider
range when compared to the physical disabilities which are
enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation)
Act, 1995 ("the Disabilities Act", for short). But if any of
the disabilities enumerated in Section 2(i) of the
Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a
motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the
purpose of claiming compensation.
9. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by
the doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often
than not, with reference to a particular limb. When a
MACT No. 382/2018 Manoj Yadav Vs. Rahis Page No. 15 of 27
disability certificate states that the injured has suffered
permanent disability to an extent of 45% of the left lower
limb, it is not the same as 45% permanent disability with
reference to the whole body. The extent of disability of a
limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of a
percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously
cannot be assumed to be the extent of disability of the
whole body. If there is 60% permanent disability of the
right hand and 80% permanent disability of left leg, it does
not mean that the extent of permanent disability with
reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus
60%). If different parts of the body have suffered different
percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed
in terms of the permanent disability with reference to the
whole body cannot obviously exceed 100%.
10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a
result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the
head of loss of future earnings would depend upon the
effect and impact of such permanent disability on his
earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically
apply the percentage of permanent disability as the
percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In
most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is,
the percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a
permanent disability will be different from the percentage
of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume
that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of
permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss
of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence
produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold
that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of
the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of
earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent
disability will result in award of either too low or too high
a compensation.
11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the
effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity
of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning
capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be
quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of
earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used
to determine loss of dependency). We may however note
that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and
assessment, the Tribunal may find that the percentage of
loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent
disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of
permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal
will adopt the said percentage for determination of
compensation. (See for example, the decisions of this Court
in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
MACT No. 382/2018 Manoj Yadav Vs. Rahis Page No. 16 of 27
[(2010) 10 SCC 254 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1258 : (2010) 10
Scale 298] and Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co.
Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC 341 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1285 :
(2010) 8 Scale 567] )
12. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there
is any permanent disability and, if so, the extent of such
permanent disability. This means that the Tribunal should
consider and decide with reference to the evidence:
(i) whether the disablement is permanent or
temporary;
(ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it
is permanent total disablement or permanent
partial disablement;
(iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed
with reference to any specific limb, then the
effect of such disablement of the limb on the
functioning of the entire body, that is, the
permanent disability suffered by the person.
If the Tribunal concludes that there is no
permanent disability then there is no question
of proceeding further and determining the loss
of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal
concludes that there is permanent disability
then it will proceed to ascertain its extent.
After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent
of permanent disability of the claimant based
on the medical evidence, it has to determine
whether such permanent disability has affected
or will affect his earning capacity.
13. 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 disability (this
is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head
of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain
his avocation, profession and nature of work before the
accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out
whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning
any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the
permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively
carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier
carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted
from discharging his previous activities and functions, but
could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and
functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to
earn his livelihood.
.
MACT No. 382/2018 Manoj Yadav Vs. Rahis Page No. 17 of 27 .
.
.
19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above:
(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.
(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that the percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as the percentage of permanent disability).
(iii) The doctor who treated an injured claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard to the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety.
(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors."
26. The above-said principles have been placed reliance upon in a recent judgment reported as Sidram Vs. The Divisional Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd and Anr., arising out of SLP (Civil) no. 19277 of 2018 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as decided on 16.11.2022.
27. It is settled proposition of law as held in catena of judgments that "just compensation" should include all elements that would go to place the victim in as near a position as she or MACT No. 382/2018 Manoj Yadav Vs. Rahis Page No. 18 of 27 he was in, before the occurrence of the accident. Whilst no amount of money or other material compensation can erase the trauma, pain and suffering that a victim undergoes after a serious accident, (or replace the loss of a loved one), monetary compensation is the manner known to law, whereby society assures some measure of restitution to those who survive, and the victims who have to face their lives.
(1). PECUNIARY DAMAGES :
28. Damages under pecuniary heads primarily involves reimbursement of actual amount spent on account of injury suffered in an accident to undo the monetary loss, suffered by the claimant, as ascertainable from the evidence on record. Given hereunder are various heads under which compensation for pecuniary damages is assessed:
(i) Expenditure on Medical Treatment:
29. PW1 testified that he has incurred Rs. 15,00,000/- on his medical treatment. Claimant has filed original medical bills amounting to Rs. 12,69,659/- on record as Ex.PW1/3 along with computation. He also conceded that the entire medical expense was covered and paid under the Health Insurance Scheme, however, he argued that same cannot be deducted from the compensation amount. Counsel for claimant also relied upon the case of The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Dolly Satish Gandhi & Anr. First Appeal No. 1344 of 2014. Counsel for Insurance Company, on the other hand, contended that all the medical bills have been duly reimbursed by claimant through medi-claim policy and as such he cannot be compensated twice MACT No. 382/2018 Manoj Yadav Vs. Rahis Page No. 19 of 27 for the expenditure which has already been reimbursed by availing benefits under medi -claim policy.
30. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Patricia Jean Mahajan and Ors., (2002) 6 SCC 281, while examining the question of deductibility of benefits received under various insurance schemes in the context of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, specifically noted the distinction between pecuniary advantages which are independent of the accident and those which arise directly out of the same. The Hon'ble Court observed that where insurance proceeds are payable regardless of the accident, such amounts are not liable for deduction. However, in contrast, where the insurance proceeds are paid specifically due to occurrence of an accident, such as Mediclaim reimbursements are liable for deduction from the awarded compensation. The relevant portion is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:
"Thus it would not include that which the claimant receives on account of other forms of deaths, which he would have received even apart from accidental death. Thus, such pecuniary advantage would have no correlation to the accidental death for which compensation is computed. Any amount received or receivable not only on account of the accidental death but that which would have come to the claimant even otherwise, could not be construed to be the "pecuniary advantage" liable for deduction. However, where the employer insures his employee, as against injury or death arising out of an accident, any amount received out of such insurance on the happening of such incident may be an amount liable for deduction. However, our legislature has taken note of such contingency through the proviso of Section 95. Under it the liability of the insurer is excluded in respect of injury or death, arising out of and in the course of employment of an employee."
31. It is thus concluded that the claimant cannot be permitted to receive the benefit of reimbursement for medical expenditure MACT No. 382/2018 Manoj Yadav Vs. Rahis Page No. 20 of 27 from two distinct sources for the same accident-related treatment. As all the treatment bills have already been covered under Mediclaim Policy, no compensation/reimbursement is made out under this head.
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance :
32. The claimant has placed on record certain bills pertaining to conveyance charges, exhibited as Ex. PW1/5, amounting to Rs.12,800/-. It is duly noted that the claimant had suffered serious multiple injuries as a result of the accident and had to undergo prolonged active treatment extending over a period of one year, including hospitalization and numerous follow-up visits to medical facilities. In view of the nature and extent of injuries, it is reasonable to presume that the claimant would have required the assistance of a support person to accompany him during such visits and manage mobility. Taking into account the hardship suffered during commuting to hospitals/medical centers during treatment, frequency of visits, and incidental expenses not covered by bills, an additional sum of Rs. 10,000/- is awarded under the head of conveyance. A total of Rs.22,800/- is awarded for expenditure of conveyance.
(iii) Expenditure on special diet :
33. No specific bills for special diet have been placed on record. However, considering the grievous and multiple injuries sustained by the patient including abdominal surgeries, diaphragmatic repair, colostomy, urethral complications, and orthopedic trauma, it is evident that a prolonged recovery period requiring enhanced nutritional support would have been MACT No. 382/2018 Manoj Yadav Vs. Rahis Page No. 21 of 27 necessary. Considering the nature of injuries and prolonged treatment including multiple major surgeries and recurrent hospitalization, it is reasonable to infer recommendation of appropriate protein-rich diet to support wound healing, immunity, and overall rehabilitation. Accordingly, taking into account the prolonged duration of treatment and the critical need for adequate nutrition, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded under the head of special diet.
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant :
34. There is no specific bill or document on record to substantiate any expenditure towards attendant charges. However, considering the severity and multiplicity of injuries sustained by the injured including abdominal trauma requiring multiple major surgeries, orthopedic fractures, colostomy, and prolonged urological issues, it is reasonable to conclude that he would have required continuous assistance for mobility, feeding, and day-to-day care. The disability certificate placed on record as Ex.PW1/6 confirms that the injured has suffered 50% permanent physical impairment. It is further evident that the injured underwent active treatment over one year, involving repeated hospitalizations and follow-up OPD visits. It is settled that assistance rendered by family members also requires to be compensated. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards attendant charges.
(v) Loss of Income / Leave encashment:
35. PW1 has deposed that he was doing business of milk supply in Delhi and earning Rs. 30,000/- per month. There is no MACT No. 382/2018 Manoj Yadav Vs. Rahis Page No. 22 of 27 documentary evidence filed on record in respect of running this business. He also deposed that he does not file ITR. He also admitted that he has no address proof of Delhi. As per Aadhar Card Ex.PW1/2, he is a resident of Uttar Pradesh. There is no educational qualification document filed on record, however, PW1 stated during cross-examination that he was 8 th pass. In such eventuality, his income is assessed as per minimum wages for unskilled person, applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh at the time of accident which was Rs.7,400/-.
36. The injured sustained severe and multiple traumatic injuries in the accident, including comminuted pelvic fractures, diaphragmatic tear, bladder injury, and bowel trauma, which required immediate and prolonged medical treatment. He initially underwent emergency surgery on 11.12.2017, involving laparotomy, bladder diversion, fracture management, etc. Due to ongoing complications, he had several follow-up visits and re- admissions. In August 2018, he was admitted again for operative procedures related to bowel and sphincter complications. He was further hospitalized in September 2018 with fever and abdominal pain and was diagnosed with urethral stricture and UTI, requiring further urological management. The repeated admissions, serious nature of injuries, surgeries, and continued follow-up care clearly indicate that the injured was unable to engage in any gainful activity during this period. Based on the medical records and discharge summaries, the injured remained under active treatment for approximately one year from the date of accident. Total loss of income is calculated to be Rs. 7,400/- x 12 = Rs.88,800/-.
MACT No. 382/2018 Manoj Yadav Vs. Rahis Page No. 23 of 27 (vi) Loss of future income/earning :
37. It is settled that a person is required to be compensated not just for the physical injury but also for the loss he has suffered as well as the loss which he might entail for the rest of his life on account of those injuries which he sustained in the accident. This necessarily means that he is required to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy normal amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the injury, his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (Support drawn from the judgment titled as C. K. Subramania Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair (1969) 3 SCC 64).
38. Disability Assessment Certificate Ex.PW1/6 has been filed, as per which injured suffered 50% permanent physical disability. Ld. Counsel for the insurance company argued that any Issuing Authority has not been called to prove the certificate, however, it is evident that the Handicap Certificate was issued by the Office of and under signatures of Chief Medical Officer, Gautam Budh Nagar, countersigned by three Members including Orthopedic Surgon and Physician. As such, there is no reason to doubt its genuiness or credibility as a certifying document.
39. Before proceeding further, it is important to understand as to what disability means and also types thereof. This aspect has been delved into by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar (supra):
"8. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a human being. Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to MACT No. 382/2018 Manoj Yadav Vs. Rahis Page No. 24 of 27 remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor accident injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 ("the Disabilities Act", for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in Section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming compensation."
40. The term 'disability' means the decrements to the functional efficacy of body of injured whereas 'functioning' encompass all the body functions and activities for an independent life. Functional disability is to determine the extent of loss or extent of restrictive functionality considering the nature of activities required to be necessarily performed in efficient discharge of duties and the limb effected. This computes the extent of adverse effect of physical disability upon the functional efficacy of an injured person, in turn adversely impacting his earning capacity. The process entails understanding and enumerating the skill set required for performing specific activities. To sum up, functional disability basically measures the extent of ability having been compromised to carry out basic everyday tasks or even more complex tasks required for and independent living. The limitations may occur on account of disability in the personal sphere, in the social sphere and in the occupational sphere. In the personal sphere it may encompass the daily activities of a person, his body function and his MACT No. 382/2018 Manoj Yadav Vs. Rahis Page No. 25 of 27 involvement in basis life situations. At the societal level, it could mean difficulty in involvement and participation in social and community activities interfering the interpersonal interaction and relationship adversely impacting the civic life. When disability restricts the vocation or employment avenues to make earning for his living, it falls in the category of disability in the occupational sphere. The disability might occur on account of age or any illness and in the case at hand by way of an accident. A person living a normal life in particular set of circumstance and making his living by engaging in any work has suffered disability which might impead his daily life activities, both on a personal and social scale and might also impact his ability to continue earning as much as before and his future employment avenues.
41. What is thus required to be assessed is the effect and impact of disability upon the working efficiency of injured and whether it would adversely impact his earning capabilities in future. It is settled that the Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity.
42. Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down certain guidelines for the Tribunal to be able to arrive at an objective figure to quantify the loss for the purpose of computing the compensation in the judgment of Raj Kumar (supra). Relevant extracts of this judgment for the purpose of further discussion are reproduced hereunder:
"Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability
9. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate MACT No. 382/2018 Manoj Yadav Vs. Rahis Page No. 26 of 27 states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the same as 45% permanent disability with reference to the whole body. The extent of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of a percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole body. If there is 60% permanent disability of the right hand and 80% permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent of permanent disability with reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the body have suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to the whole body cannot obviously exceed 100%.
10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation.
11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that the percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation. (See for example, the decisions of this Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC 254 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1258 : (2010) 10 Scale 298] and Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC 341 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1285 : (2010) 8 Scale 567] )
12. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is MACT No. 382/2018 Manoj Yadav Vs. Rahis Page No. 27 of 27 any permanent disability and, if so, the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the Tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence:
(i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary;
(ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement;
(iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is, the permanent disability suffered by the person.
If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity.
13. 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 disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood.
.
.
.
.
19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above:
(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.
MACT No. 382/2018 Manoj Yadav Vs. Rahis Page No. 28 of 27
(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that the percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as the percentage of permanent disability).
(iii) The doctor who treated an injured claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard to the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety.
(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors."
43. Further in the case of "Mohan Soni v Ram Avtar Tomar & Ors. I (2012) ACC 1 (SC), the question at hand was deliberated and following observations as relevant in the context were made:
"In the context of loss of future earning, any physical disability resulting from an accident has to be judged with reference to the nature of work being performed by the person suffering the disability. This is the basic premise and once that is grasped, it clearly follows that the same injury or loss may affect two different persons in different ways. Take the case of a marginal farmer who does his cultivation work himself and ploughs his land with his own two hands; or the puller of a cycle-rickshaw, one of the main means of transport in hundreds of small towns all over the country. The loss of one of the legs either to the marginal farmer or the cycle-rickshaw-puller would be the end of the road insofar as their earning capacity is concerned. But in case of a person engaged in some kind of desk work in an office, the loss of a leg may not have the same effect. The loss of a leg (or for that matter the loss of any limb) to anyone is bound to have very traumatic effects on one's personal, family or social life but the loss of one of the legs to a person working in the office would not interfere with his work/earning capacity in the same degree as in the case of a marginal farmer or a cycle- rickshaw-puller.
44. The question of assessment of impact of disability on the MACT No. 382/2018 Manoj Yadav Vs. Rahis Page No. 29 of 27 earning capacity has been dealt in several cases but it is understood that each case has to be evaluated in its contextual dynamics established by way of evidence at hand. It brings us to a question whether extent of permanent disability as medically determined can simply be taken to be the extent of functional disability and hence, the loss of earning capacity. It has been held in various pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Hon'ble High Court that equating the two as a criteria would result in an inobjective and absurd compensation. There however, might be certain cases where the two would correspond to each other but it cannot be mechanically applied rather requires evaluation of applicable factors independently in each case to reach at a fair quantification of loss of earning capacity.
45. In the case of Raj Kumar (supra) the physical functional disability of left leg was assessed to be 75% and total body disability at 37.5 %. In this case, functional disability was also assessed at 75% and it was observed that the extent of physical functional disability has to be considered so as to grant just and proper compensation towards loss of future earning as the earning capacity of injured was totally negated having been rendered incapable of doing any manual work. It was also held that if permanent disability in relation to particular limb renders the injured permanently disabled from pursuing his normal vocation or any other similar work, there is no reason as to why compensation should be granted on the basis of physical disability in relation to whole body. In another matter of Syed Sadiq Etc vs Divisional Manager,United India AIR 2014 SC 1052, where functional disability was considered to be 65% by Hon'ble High Court in case of a vegetable vendor whose right MACT No. 382/2018 Manoj Yadav Vs. Rahis Page No. 30 of 27 leg had to be amputated was set aside and it was observed that loss of limb is often equivalent to loss of livelihood specially in manual labour cases and determined the functional disability at 85 percent. In another matter of Arvind Kumar Mishra Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd., (2010) 10 SCC 254, injured suffered grievous injuries and remained in coma for about 2 months and was held to be permanently disabled to the extent of 70% with his right hand amputated whereas his loss of earning capacity was held to be 90%. Similarly in case of K Janardhan v United India Insurance Company AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2384, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, held that a tanker driver suffered 100% functional disability and incapacity to earn as a tanker driver as his right leg was amputated from the knee. In the case of Pappu Deo Yadav v Naresh Kumar, MAC App. 117/2018 , injured suffered loss of an arm and therefore, was unable to carry out his functions as a typist / data entry operator and thus acknowledging the impact of injury upon the income generating capacity of victim, the extent of functional disablement and loss of income generating earning capacity was equated with the extent of permanent disablement as medically assessed at 89%. Similarly, in the case of Sidram (supra), injured suffered paraplegia due to accident and was medically assessed with permanent disability to the tune of 45%, however, he was held to have suffered 100% loss of earning capacity.
46. The injured suffered multiple serious injuries in the accident, including comminuted pelvic fractures, diaphragmatic tear, and trauma to the bladder and bowel. As a result of these injuries, he has been assessed to have suffered 50% permanent physical impairment as per Disability Certificate issued by CMO, MACT No. 382/2018 Manoj Yadav Vs. Rahis Page No. 31 of 27 Gautam Budh Nagar. Injured underwent prolonged medical treatment with several operative procedures on different occasions. He initially underwent emergency surgery on 11.12.2017, involving laparotomy, bladder diversion, fracture management, He had several follow-up visits and re-admissions. In August 2018, he was admitted again for operative procedures related to bowel and sphincter complications. The injuries are not only severe in nature but also affected the core areas of mobility, stability, and internal bodily functions. Such injuries, particularly to the pelvic region and internal organs, can have lasting consequences on a person's daily functioning and earning ability. These often result in chronic pain, restricted movement as well as difficulty in sitting or standing for long periods. In addition, the damage to the bladder and urethral area can lead to long-term urological complications.
47. While the claimant has stated that he has become impotent as a result of the injury, there is no conclusive medical evidence on record to establish permanent loss of fertility.
48. Considering the extent of physical impairment and the functional difficulties arising on account of nature iinjuries, in the backdrop of the occupation of the injured and the necessity for free mobility as well as picking loads including the milk drums (as deposed by injured himself), it would be reasonable and just to assess his functional disability at not less than 40% with respect to his capacity to earn a livelihood.
Future Prospect:
49. It is also held therein that future prospect (as laid down in MACT No. 382/2018 Manoj Yadav Vs. Rahis Page No. 32 of 27 the well considered judgment of National Insurance Company v Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680) shall be payable, not only in fatal cases but also in the case of permanent disability. The observations made in the said case as relevant to the context are reproduced hereunder:
"6. The principle consistently followed by this court in assessing motor vehicle compensation claims, is to place the victim in as near a position as she or he was in before the accident, with other compensatory directions for loss of amenities and other payments. These general principles have been stated and reiterated in several decisions.
7. Two questions arise for consideration: one, whether in cases of permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor accident, the claimant can seek, apart from compensation for future loss of income, amounts for future Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. [Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683. This court referred to the pronouncements in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 551; Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka (2009) 6 SCC 1; Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan (2009) 13 SCC 422; Raj Kumar v.
Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343. Govind Yadav spelt out these principles by stating that the courts should, "in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily. If the victim of the accident suffers permanent disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the loss of earning and his inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident." These decisions were also followed in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar Mohanty, (2018) 3 SCC 686. prospects too; and two, the extent of disability. On the first question, the High Court no doubt, is technically correct in holding that Pranay Sethi involved assessment of compensation in a case where the victim died. However, it went wrong in saying that later, the three-judge bench decision in Jagdish was not binding, but rather that the subsequent decision in Anant10 to the extent that it did not award compensation for future prospects, was binding. This court is of the opinion that there was no justification for the High Court to have read the previous rulings of this court, to exclude the possibility of compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement. Such a narrow reading of Pranay Sethi11 is illogical, because it denies altogether the MACT No. 382/2018 Manoj Yadav Vs. Rahis Page No. 33 of 27 possibility of the living victim progressing further in life in accident cases - and admits such possibility of future prospects, in case of the victim's death.
.
.
50. Hon'ble Supreme Court further discussed several cases involving permanent disability and observed as under:
20. Courts should not adopt a stereotypical or myopic approach, but instead, view the matter taking into account the realities of life, both in the assessment of the extent of disabilities, and compensation under various heads.
.
.
....What is to be seen, as emphasized by decision after decision, is the impact of the injury upon the income generating capacity of the victim. The loss of a limb (a leg or arm) and its severity on that account is to be judged in relation to the profession, vocation or business of the victim; there cannot be a blind arithmetic formula for ready application. On an overview of the principles outlined in the previous decisions, it is apparent that the income generating capacity of the appellant was undoubtedly severely affected".
51. PW-1 has filed his Aadhar Card as Ex.PW1/2 on record as per which his date of birth is 01.01.1996, therefore, his age as on the date of accident was about 22 years. Since the injured was under the age of 40 (at the time of accident) and was employed on a fixed salary (minimum wages), thus as laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the percentage towards future prospect is taken to be @ 40 % upon application of category of ''self- employed or on a fixed salary''.
Multiplier:
52. The multiplier method was coined by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarla Verma v Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 3483 of 2008, decided on 15.04.2009 to ascertain the future loss of income in relation to MACT No. 382/2018 Manoj Yadav Vs. Rahis Page No. 34 of 27 the age of the deceased, in order to bring about the uniformity and consistency in determination of compensation payable in fatal and serious injuries matters. Relevant observations with respect to the multiplier method in the abovementioned case read as under:
"The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed-up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last."
53. The standard multiplier method was directed to be applied not only to ascertain the loss of dependancy in fatal accident case but also to determine future loss of earning in serious disability matters as well {as laid in the case of Raj Kumar (supra)}. In a recent Judgment of Pappu Dev Yadav (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court of India relied upon and reiterated the principles laid in various judgments passed by it in the case of Sr. Antony @ Antony Swamy v Managing Director KSRTC, Civil Appeal No. 2551 of 2018 and held that stereotypical or myopic approach must be avoided and pragmatic reality of life must be taken into account to determine the impact of extent of disability upon the income generated capacity of victim.
54. The income of injured as determined upon appreciation of evidence, thus, forms the multiplicand. The appropriate multiplier, applicable in this case would be 18 (for age group 21- 25 years).
MACT No. 382/2018 Manoj Yadav Vs. Rahis Page No. 35 of 27
55. In view of the above discussion of law, the calculation under future loss of income in the present case is as under:
(a) Annual income (Rs. 7,400/- x 12) : Rs. 88,800/-
(b) Future prospect (40% of Rs.88,800/-) : Rs. 35,520/-
------------------
(c) Total = Rs. 1,24,320/-
------------------
(d) Thus, Multiplicand = Rs. 1,24,320/-
(e) Hence, the 'Total Loss of Future Income' shall be :-
Percentage of Functional Disability (Multiplicand X Multiplier).
40% (Rs. 1,24,320/- X 18) = Rs. 8,95,104/- NON-PECUNIARY LOSS 56. Non pecuniary damages are general damages to
compensate the injured for mental and physical shock, pain, suffering, loss of expectation of life, inconvenience, hardship, frustration, stress, dejectment and unhappiness suffered by him on account of injuries sustained in the accident. It takes into account all the aspects of a normal life which deluded injured on account of accident. Given the nature of heads covered, it is bound to involve guess work on the part of Tribunal involving some hypothetical consideration as well, primarily considering the special circumstances of the injured and the effect of those upon his future life.
(i) Compensation for pain, suffering as well as mental and physical shock:
57. The injured must have suffered significant pain and emotional distress due to the nature of the injury sustained. This, MACT No. 382/2018 Manoj Yadav Vs. Rahis Page No. 36 of 27 coupled with the limitations it imposed on his ability to perform daily activities and fulfill his occupational responsibilities, must have led to both physical pain and mental trauma. Considering the pain, suffering, and trauma endured during the recovery process, an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is awarded for the pain and suffering caused by the injury.
(ii) Loss of amenities of life:
58. It compensates the victim on account of his inability to enjoy the basic amenities of life as any other normal person can, taking into account the age and the deprivation he would have to undergo and suffer due to injuries. Accordingly an amount of Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities considering the nature of injury and the extent of disability.
59. The compensation awarded against pecuniary and non-
pecuniary damages under various heads is being sequentially put in a tabulated form hereunder for ease of reference to all concerned:
Sl. no. Pecuniary loss : - Quantum
1. (i) Expenditure on treatment Nil
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance Rs. 22,800/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs.50,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs.1,00,000/-
(v) Loss of Income / Leave Rs.88,800/-
encashment:
(vi) Loss of future Income: Rs.8,95,104/-
2. Non-Pecuniary Loss :
MACT No. 382/2018 Manoj Yadav Vs. Rahis Page No. 37 of 27
(i) Compensation of Pain and Rs.5,00,000/-
suffering as well as mental and
physical shock
(ii) Loss of amenities of life : Rs.50,000/-
(iii) Disfiguration : Nil
Total Compensation Rs.17,06,704/-
Interest As directed below
Interest
60. It is settled that any fixed rate of interest cannot be prescribed for all cases at all times and would largely depend upon the prevailing rate of interest as per the applicable guidelines. As such, interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum is deemed fit and accordingly granted in the present case. (Reliance placed upon National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Yad Ram MAC APP 526/2018 also referred and relied in case of The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Sohan Lal & Ors. MAC APP 70/2024 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court).
Liability
61. Insurance Company has conceded valid and effective Insurance Policy on the date of accident and has not raised any statutory defence. It has already been held that accident occurred on account of speedy and rash driving of offending vehicle. It is settled that Insurance Company is responsible to indemnify owner / insured for vicarious liability incurred by tort feaser. Therefore, such principal award amount/compensation will be payable by the insurance company of offending vehicle with simple interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition till actual realization. (If there is any order regarding MACT No. 382/2018 Manoj Yadav Vs. Rahis Page No. 38 of 27 excluding of interest for specific period same be complied at the time of calculation of award amount).
62. The award amount shall be deposited by the Insurance Company. Counsel for the Insurance Company/Nodal Officer of insurance company is also directed to furnish the complete case details, including the MACT case number, CNR number, FIR number, name of Police Station, name of the deceased/claimant(s), date of accident, and any other relevant particulars, to the State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi while getting the amount deposited. The amount shall be deposited through RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in the account titled "MACT FUND PARKING", Account No. 00000042706870765, IFSC Code SBIN0014244, MICR Code 110002342, under intimation to the Nazir of this Tribunal.
MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE' (MCTAP).
63. This court is in receipt of the orders dated 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 Annuity 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.
MACT No. 382/2018 Manoj Yadav Vs. Rahis Page No. 39 of 27 Release of Amount
64. Out of the total award amount, a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- is kept in form of monthly FDR of Rs.30,000/- each. Remaining amount of Rs.5,06,704/ shall be released in the bank account of injured as per rules/directions.
Directions to the Branch Manager, SBI, Saket Court Complex
65. The Manager, SBI, Saket Court Complex, is directed to verify the documents and details submitted by the claimant pertaining to their bank account, and upon proper verification, under certification of the Branch Manager (of the bank whose details have been provided by the claimant for release of the compensation amount), disburse the amount (ordered to be released) directly into the verified bank account of the claimant under notice to this Tribunal.
Directions with respect to Fixed Deposit:
(a) As per Practice Directions, Hon'ble High Court, vide reference no. 134/Rules/DHC, dated 14.05.2025, the bank shall invest the amount to be deposited in fixed deposit and to renew the same after periodical intervals till further orders are passed by the Tribunal.
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name (s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of victim i.e. the savings bank account of the claimant shall be individual savings bank account and not a joint account.
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant.
MACT No. 382/2018 Manoj Yadav Vs. Rahis Page No. 40 of 27
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR (s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/ or debit card to claimant (s). However, in case the debit card and/ or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit freeze the account of the claimant so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque book and / or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
FORM -VI-B SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD.
1 Date of accident 11.12.2017 2 Name of injured Sh. Manoj Yadav 3 Age of the injured 22 years 4 Occupation of the injured As per record MACT No. 382/2018 Manoj Yadav Vs. Rahis Page No. 41 of 27 5 Income of the injured As per record 6 Nature of injury Grievous + Disability 7 Medical treatment taken by As per record.
the injured:
8 Period of Hospitalization As per record.
9 Whether any permanent Yes. (50% Permanent
disability? Physical Impairment)
66. Copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost. The copy of award be also sent to the Ld. Secretary DLSA and Ld. Concerned criminal court.
67. Put up for compliance on 09.07.2025.
Announced in the open court on 24.05.2025 (Shelly Arora) PO (MACT)-02, SE/Saket New Delhi Digitally signed by SHELLY SHELLY ARORA Date: ARORA 2025.05.24 16:58:59 +0530 MACT No. 382/2018 Manoj Yadav Vs. Rahis Page No. 42 of 27