Delhi District Court
Suresh Kumar vs Raj Kumar on 6 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHILASH MALHOTRA
PRESIDING OFFICER: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-02 , PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:
SURESH KUMAR RAI Vs. RAJ KUMAR &
ANR.
MISC. DJ NO. 2951/2024
Sh. Suresh Kumar Rai
S/o Sh. Laljeet Rai
H. No. 15, Sarai Sohal,
Manglapuri, Palam, Delhi ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Raj Kumar
S/o Sh. Rajinder Kumar
R/o H. No. 173,
Balmiki Sadan NDMC Quarters,
G.P.O. New Delhi -110001. .... Driver-cum-Owner
Respondent no.1
2. M/s The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
K-37, Connaught Place, New Delhi.
....Insurance Company/Respondent no. 2
Date of accident 27.11.2023
Date of filing of DAR 05.07.2024
Date of framing of issues 29.01.2025
Date of concluding arguments 22.04.2026
Date of decision 06.05.2026
Misc. DJ No. 2951/2024 Page. 1 of 35
Suresh Kumar Rai Vs Raj Kumar & Anr.
AWARD/JUDGMENT
Index to the Judgment
BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE CLAIMANT(s)................................................4
FRAMING OF ISSUES...................................................................................... 5 EVIDENCE LED BY THE PARTIES................................................................6 ARGUMENTS OF COUNSELS OF THE PARTIES.........................................8 ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO........................................9 i. Presumption qua complicity upon filing chargesheet:.............................9 ii. Adverse inference qua driver:...............................................................11 iii. Preponderance of probabilities:...........................................................11 iv. Finding:................................................................................................ 13
(b) Issue No.2: Whether claimant is entitled to compensation, and to what amount?......................................................................................................... 13 i. Extent of disability:................................................................................13 ii. Principles qua assessment of compensation:........................................13 iii. Loss of Future Income:........................................................................18 iv. Expenditure on Treatment....................................................................18 v. Expenditure on Conveyance & Special Diet (Pecuniary):....................19 vi. Expenditure on Attendant (Pecuniary):...............................................19 vii. Cost of Artificial Limb:......................................................................19 viii. Loss of earning capacity...................................................................20 ix. Loss of Income (during the period of treatment):...............................20 ix. Any other loss which may require any special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life....................................................................20 Any other loss which may require any special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life....................................................................21 Loss of Future Income & loss of income.................................................21 TOTAL.....................................................................................................21 Misc. DJ No. 2951/2024 Page. 2 of 35 Suresh Kumar Rai Vs Raj Kumar & Anr.
Non-Pecuniary Heads.............................................................................. 21 x. Compensation for Mental & Physical shock, Pain & Suffering and Loss of amenities (Non-Pecuniary):.........................................................21 xi. Loss of Marriage Prospects (Non-Pecuniary):...................................23 xii. Disfiguration (Non-Pecuniary):.........................................................23 xiii. Loss of earnings, inconvenience, hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress and unhappiness in future life etc. (Non- Pecuniary):................................................................................................ 23
(a) Issue No.3: Relief.....................................................................................24 i. Amount of Award:..................................................................................24 ii. Rate of Interest:....................................................................................24 iii. Deposit of Award:................................................................................ 26 LIABILITY.......................................................................................................27 SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES............................................................................................................... 29 COMPLIANCE QUA PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME...............................32 Misc. DJ No. 2951/2024 Page. 3 of 35 Suresh Kumar Rai Vs Raj Kumar & Anr.
BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE CLAIMANT(s)
1. In present case, FIR bearing no. 0141/2023 was registered in PS Parliament Street, New Delhi on the complaint made by complaint Sh. Suresh Kumar Rai against driver-cum-owner / R-1 Sh. Raj Kumar. A charge sheet was filed by the police against the driver-cum-owner / R-1 Sh. Raj Kumar under Section 279/337/338 IPC & 3/181/185 of M. V. Act on the charges of rash driving of driver-cum-owner / R-1 Sh. Raj Kumar.
2. As per the chare sheet, complainant Sh. Suresh Kumar Rai along with his sister Ms. Laxmi Kumari were waiting for a bus at the bus stop. R-1 / driver-cum-owner was driving his motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-6SBC-4365 at high speed in rash manner and hit the pedestrians. Injuries were received by Mr. Suresh Kumar Rai as well as Ms. Laxmi Kumar. R-1 driver-cum-owner was found without any driving licence and the blood examination report also confirmed the presence of liquor in his blood beyond the permissible limits.
3. Claim petition bearing no. 2951/24 was filed by Mr. Suresh Kumar Rai and claim petition bearing no. 2952/24 was filed by Ms. Laxmi Kumari.
4. R-1 driver-cum-owner Sh. Raj Kumar initially appeared on 05.07.2024 but thereafter stopped appearing in the matter.
Misc. DJ No. 2951/2024 Page. 4 of 35 Suresh Kumar Rai Vs Raj Kumar & Anr.
5. By order dated 29.01.2025, my Ld. Predecessor framed the issues and directed that evidence in claim petition bearing 2951/24 and 2952/24 be consolidated and the case no. 2952/24 pertaining to injured Ms. Laxmi Kumari be treated as lead case.
6. As per the DAR, the vehicle was driven by respondent no. 1 driver-cum-owner, insured with respondent no. 2 Insurance company.
7. Thereafter, the written submissions were filed by the claimant / petitioner in the prescribed format giving computation of the compensation of claimed. Financial statement of the injured/petitioner was also recorded.
FRAMING OF ISSUES
8. Vide order dated 29.01.2025, following issues were framed by this Tribunal:-
"1. Whether the petitioner suffered injuries in a vehicular accident that took place on 26.11.2023 at about 7:30 p.m at opposite Bangla Sahib Gurudwara Bus Stand, Ashoka Road, New Delhi involving a vehicle bearing registration No. DL-6SBC-4365 (offending vehicle) being driven and owned by respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner and insured with respondent no.2 / Insurance company?OPP
2. Whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP Misc. DJ No. 2951/2024 Page. 5 of 35 Suresh Kumar Rai Vs Raj Kumar & Anr.
3. Relief."
EVIDENCE LED BY THE PARTIES
9. Claim petition bearing no. 2951/24 was filed by Mr. Suresh Kumar Rai and claim petition bearing no. 2952/24 was filed by Ms. Laxmi Kumari.
10.Vide order dated 29.01.2025, my Ld. Predecessor framed the issues and directed that evidence in claim petition bearing 2951/24 and 2952/24 be consolidated and the case no. 2952/24 pertaining to injured Ms. Laxmi Kumari be treated as lead case.
11.PW- Mr. Suresh Kumar Rai (in case no.2951/24) has tendered his affidavit in chief by way of evidence as Ex. PW 1/A. He proved on record the following documents viz., Copy of MLC Report as Ex. PW 1/1 (Colly); Copy of Aadhar Card as Ex. PW 1/1 (OSR); Copy of DAR filed by the IO as Ex. PW 1/3 (Colly).
12.In his testimony PW- Suresh Kumar Rai stated that on 26.11.2023 at around 7:30 p.m, he along with his sister and family members reached at the bus stand near Bangla Sahib Gurudwara, Ashoka Road, New Delhi. When he was waiting for the bus, a avenger bike of black colour bearing no. DL-6SBC-4365 driven at a high speed in rash manner hit him as well as his sister. They received injuries and were taken to Dr. R.M.L. Hospital, New Delhi. The name of the driver Misc. DJ No. 2951/2024 Page. 6 of 35 Suresh Kumar Rai Vs Raj Kumar & Anr.
surfaced as R-1 Mr. Raj Kumar. He stated that he received grievous injuries. He also deposed regarding the expenditure incurred on his treatment and the loss of income suffered by him.
13.He stated that he was earning around Rs.30,000/- to Rs.35,000/- per month from home tuition or private work.
14.In his cross examination, he admitted that he does not have any medical bills of his treatment. He confirmed that he has suffered simple injury on his left leg. He stated that he has taken 10 days leave from his office but do not have any documentary proof in this regard.
15.R-1 driver-cum-owner did not lead any evidence.
16.Insurance company examined RW -Ms. Alka in both the cases i.e. case no. 2951/24 & 2952/24. The affidavit in chief of Ms. Alka is RW1/A. She proved on record the following documents viz. Certified copy of policy as Ex. R2W1/A; Copy of notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC as Ex. R2W1/B; Original Postal Receipt as Ex. R2W1/C; Track Report as Ex. R2W1/D; Copy of MLC dated 26.11.2023 as Ex. R2W1/E; Copy of RFSL Report dt. 13.02.2024 as Ex. R2W1/F.
17.RW - Ms. Alka stated that she is working as Administrative Officer with the Insurance Company. She stated that Insurance policy from 30.07.2019 to 29.07.2024 was issued in respect of offending / insured vehicle bearing no. DL-6SBC-4365. She stated that R-1 / driver-cum-owner was Misc. DJ No. 2951/2024 Page. 7 of 35 Suresh Kumar Rai Vs Raj Kumar & Anr.
not having any valid driving licence and had consumed alcohol at the time of driving and police filed charge sheet under Section 3/181 & section 185 of the M. V. Act. She stated that as there is breach of policy condition, Insurance company is not liable to pay compensation.
18. In her cross examination RW- Ms. Alka stated that at the time of accident, the insurance policy in respect of offending vehicle was valid.
ARGUMENTS OF COUNSELS OF THE PARTIES
19.Ld. Counsel for the claimant contended that the accident occurred due to the wanton negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. He submitted that the factum of filing of charge sheet itself establishes negligence on the part of the driver.
20.He submitted that both the injured persons i.e. Mr. Suresh Kumar Rai and Ms. Laxmi Kumari in their testimonies have clearly stated that the accident had occurred due to rash driving at high speed by R-1 / driver-cum-owner of offending/ insured vehicle. He submitted that the blood test report of R-1 also confirms consumption of alcohol beyond permissible limits which also corroborates the fact of rash driving on his part. He submitted that R-1 has failed to appear and lead any evidence to rebut the aspect of rash driving.
Misc. DJ No. 2951/2024 Page. 8 of 35 Suresh Kumar Rai Vs Raj Kumar & Anr.
21.He submitted that even if R-1 driver-cum-owner was not having any driving licence and has breached the terms of policy, the Insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to the victim as per the principle of pay and recover.
22. Ld. counsel for Insurance company submitted that they have issued notice to R-1 to produce the driving licence. R-1 / driver failed to produce the driving licence which shows that he was driving the vehicle without valid driving licence. It is also stated that as per the blood sample report, the alcohol beyond permissible limit was found in the blood sample of R-1 driver-cum-owner and there is breach of policy condition.
ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO
23. Issue No.1:Whether the petitioner suffered injuries in a vehicular accident that took place on 26.11.2023 at about 7:30 p.m at opposite Bangla Sahib Gurudwara Bus Stand, Ashoka Road, New Delhi involving a vehicle bearing registration No. DL-6SBC-4365 (offending vehicle) being driven and owned by respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner and insured with respondent no.2 / Insurance company?OPP i. Presumption qua complicity upon filing chargesheet:
24.Rule 21 of Annexure XIII of The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 mandates as follows:-
21. Claims Tribunal shall treat Dar as a claim petition for compensation under Sub-Section (4) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (1) The Claims Tribunal shall Misc. DJ No. 2951/2024 Page. 9 of 35 Suresh Kumar Rai Vs Raj Kumar & Anr.
treat the DAR filed by the Investigating Officer as a claim petition under Section (4) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. However, where the Investigating Officer is unable to produce the claimant(s) on the first date of hearing the Claims Tribunal shall register the DAR as a claim petition after the appearance of the claimant(s). (2) where the claimant(s) have filed a separate claim petition, the DAR may be tagged along with the claim petition.
(3) If the Report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2) of 1974 has not been filed at the time of filing of the DAR, the Claims Tribunal may either wait till filing of the Report under Section 173 of the said Code of Criminal Procedure or record the statement of the eye witness(es) to satisfy itself with respect to the negligence before passing the award.
(4) The Claims Tribunal shall register the FAR as a Miscellaneous application and the IAR as well as DAR shall be taken on record in the same Miscellaneous application.
25. In Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Meera Devi & Ors decided on 16.02.2021, 2021 LawSuit (Del) 858 it was held :
8. ..... In view of Delhi Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rules, 2008, contents of DAR had to be presumed to be correct and read in evidence without formal proof of the same unless proof to the contrary was produced........".
26. In a recent order dated 25.02.2025, passed in Ranjeet & Anr v Abdul Nayem Keb & Anr in SLP (c) 10351/2019, it was held in trenchant terms as thus:
"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."
Misc. DJ No. 2951/2024 Page. 10 of 35 Suresh Kumar Rai Vs Raj Kumar & Anr.
27.In the present case, both the injured i.e. Mr. Suresh Kumar Rai and Ms. Laxmi Kumari clearly stated that they were waiting on the bus stand and the R-1 driver-cum-owner who was driving the vehicle at high speed in rash manner hit them and caused injuries. R-1 driver-cum-owner had also consumed alcohol beyond permissible limit as per the medical report. R-1 driver-cum-owner failed to appear and rebut the aspect of rashness. Insurance company has also not disputed the aspect of rashness.
28.Accordingly, it is clear from the record that the accident had occurred due to rash driving by R-1/ driver-cum-owner of insured vehicle bearing registration number DL-6SBC-4365.
ii. Adverse inference qua driver:
29. The driver of the offending vehicle steered clear of the witness box and did not lead any controvertible evidence to negate or refute the allegations of rash and negligent driving. It may further be noted that in Cholamandlam insurance company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh 2009 (3) AD Delhi 310, it was held that if driver of offending vehicle does not enter the witness box, an adverse inference can be drawn against him. In the present case also, since the driver exercised his volition to not enter into the witness box to controvert the claim of petitioner or even to explain circumstances of accident, an adverse inference ought to be drawn against him.
Misc. DJ No. 2951/2024 Page. 11 of 35
Suresh Kumar Rai Vs Raj Kumar & Anr.
iii. Preponderance of probabilities:
30.It is trite law that in a proceeding before the Claims Tribunal, the claimant does not have to establish negligence on the part of the driver respondent beyond reasonable doubt. The standards of establishing negligence is predicated on preponderance of probabilities. In the present case too, negligence has been established on this principle.
31.In this context, it would be useful to peruse Mathew Alexander v. Mohd. Shafi, (2023) 13 SCC 510 wherein it was observed as thus:
"In this context, we could refer to the judgments of this Court in N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal [N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal, (1980) 3 SCC 457 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 774] , wherein the plea that the criminal case had ended in acquittal and that, therefore, the civil suit must follow suit, was rejected. It was observed that culpable rashness under Section 304-
AIPC is more drastic than negligence under the law of torts to create liability. Similarly, in Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC [Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC, (2009) 13 SCC 530 :
(2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 189 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1101] ("Bimla Devi"), it was observed that in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal has to determine the amount of fair compensation to be granted in the event an accident has taken place by reason of negligence of a driver of a motor vehicle. A holistic view of the evidence has to be taken into consideration by the Tribunal and strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner need not be established by the claimants. The claimants have to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering the petition seeking compensation on account of death or injury in a road traffic accident. To the same Misc. DJ No. 2951/2024 Page. 12 of 35 Suresh Kumar Rai Vs Raj Kumar & Anr.
effect is the observation made by this Court in Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz [Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646 :
(2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 73 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 13] which has referred to the aforesaid judgment in Bimla Devi [Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC (2009) 13 SCC 530."
iv. Finding:
32.In view of foregoing discussion, it stands proved on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities that the aforesaid accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing registration no.
DL-6SBC-4365 and the said vehicle at that time was driven and owned by respondent no. 1 and insured by respondent no.2. Hence, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the claimant and against the respondents.
(b) Issue No.2: Whether claimant is entitled to compensation, and to what amount?
i. Extent of disability:
33.Injured in his affidavit in chief stated that he has suffered grievous injures. However, in his cross examination he stated that the injuries suffered by him were simple in nature. In these circumstances, it is clear that no permanent disability was suffered by Mr. Suresh Kumar Rai.
Misc. DJ No. 2951/2024 Page. 13 of 35 Suresh Kumar Rai Vs Raj Kumar & Anr.
34. Accordingly, the functional disability is assessed as NIL for the purpose of calculations of future income.
ii. Principles qua assessment of compensation:
35.Before adverting to the submissions of the counsels in this regard, it would be apposite to refer to the law of the land qua this aspect. The law has been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) 1 SCC 343, Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. (2003) 6SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.(2017) 16 SCC 680. The gist of the law is that 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 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 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.
Misc. DJ No. 2951/2024 Page. 14 of 35 Suresh Kumar Rai Vs Raj Kumar & Anr.
36.In Raj Kumar v Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) 1 SCC 343 the heads under which compensation is to be calculated was expounded as thus :
"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 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:
Misc. DJ No. 2951/2024 Page. 15 of 35 Suresh Kumar Rai Vs Raj Kumar & Anr.
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."
37.The claimant filed prescribed of the Scheme for Motor Accident Claims qua the above heads pertaining to pecuniary and non pecuniary damages.
Misc. DJ No. 2951/2024 Page. 16 of 35 Suresh Kumar Rai Vs Raj Kumar & Anr.
38.Though the judgment of Raj Kumar (supra) deals with cases of fatality, it is no longer res integra that the above principles apply to cases of injury also. Recourse can be had to Yadava Kumar v National Insurance Co Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC 341 wherein it has been ordained as thus:
"9.The Second Schedule under Section 163- A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 gives a structured formula for the calculation of compensation in accident cases. Note 5 of the Schedule deals with disability in non- fatal accidents and reads as follows:
5. Disability in non-fatal accidents The following compensation shall be payable in case of disability to the victim arising out of non-fatal accidents:
Loss of income, if any, for actual period of disablement not exceeding fifty-two weeks. PLUS either of the following--
(a) In case of permanent total disablement the amount payable shall be arrived at by multiplying the annual loss of income by the multiplier applicable to the age on the date of determining the compensation, or
(b) In case of permanent partial disablement such percentage of compensation which would have been payable in the case of permanent total disablement as specified under Item (a) above.
Injuries deemed to result in permanent total disablement/permanent partial disablement and percentage of loss of earning capacity shall be as per Schedule I under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923."
Thus, the multiplier method is to be applied in cases of injuries also and it has been applied in a number of accident cases by the High Courts and this Court.
Misc. DJ No. 2951/2024 Page. 17 of 35 Suresh Kumar Rai Vs Raj Kumar & Anr.
10. This Court in Sunil Kumar v. Ram Singh Gaud [(2007) 14 SCC 61 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 771 : (2008) 1 ACJ 9] , awarded compensation in case of injury for loss of future earnings and applied the multiplier method for calculation of the same. The same principle was recognised by this Court in Priya Vasant Kalgutkar v. Murad Shaikh [(2009) 15 SCC 54 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 266 : AIR 2010 SC 40]"
39.An essential ingredient of the award is the loss of the future earnings. To calculate the same, the multiplier method is used in terms of the mandate of Sarla Verma (supra) wherein it was laid down as thus:
"42 We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie) which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years,) reduced by one unit for every years that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years , M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M -13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51-55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years ,M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M- 5 for 66 to 70 years."
40.The assessment of pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary damages is discussed in the succeeding paragraphs.
Misc. DJ No. 2951/2024 Page. 18 of 35
Suresh Kumar Rai Vs Raj Kumar & Anr.
iii. Loss of Future Income:
41.No permanent disability occurred in this case. A sum of Rs.15000/- is claimed by the petitioner. No justification for future income claim is tendered by petitioner and therefore, claim under this head is declined and the same is treated as NIL.
PECUNIARY LOSS iv. Expenditure on Treatment
42.Injured Mr. Suresh Kumar Rai has filed on record the calculation of compensation where he has claimed Rs.5,000/- towards expenditure on treatment. As per the record, he has received simple injuries and his treatment was done in a government hospital. In his cross examination he admitted that he does not have any documents in respect of expenditure on his treatment. In these circumstances, the claim under this head is not proved and declined.
v. Expenditure on Conveyance & Special Diet (Pecuniary):
43.Ld. Counsel for claimant claimed a sum of Rs.5,000/- (each) towards Conveyance and Special Diet. The Insurance company has opposed the same. It is a matter of record that PW-1 injured suffered injuries in the accident and his medical treatment records is also filed on record. It cannot be denied Misc. DJ No. 2951/2024 Page. 19 of 35 Suresh Kumar Rai Vs Raj Kumar & Anr.
that injured had to take special diet for his early recovery and had to travel for his treatment.
44.Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid, the expenditure on conveyance and Special Diet is hereby quantified as Rs. 5,000/- (each) i.e. 10,000/- in aggregate.
vi. Expenditure on Attendant (Pecuniary):
45.No amount is claimed under this head.
vii. Cost of Artificial Limb:
46. No claim is made under this head.
viii. Loss of earning capacity
47. Injured Suresh Kumar Rai has claimed loss of 5% earning capacity. No evidence is led on record. There is no proof as to permanent disability suffered by the petitioner. Accordingly, the loss of his earning capacity is hereby quantified at NIL.
ix. Loss of Income (during the period of treatment):
48. Injured / petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of income. Petitioner in his testimony admitted that he was not able to join his duty for a period of 10 days and he was earning monthly income of approximately Rs. 30,000/-. The loss of income for 10 days works out to be Rs.10,000/-
Misc. DJ No. 2951/2024 Page. 20 of 35 Suresh Kumar Rai Vs Raj Kumar & Anr.
and accordingly, the same is considered and allowed under this head as Rs.10,000/-.
ix. Any other loss which may require any special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life
49.A sum of Rs. 10,000/- is claimed by the petitioner under this head. No evidence is led or justification is offered in support of the said claim. Accordingly, the claim under this head is declined and treated as NIL.
50.Thus, the total amount awarded under Pecuniary damages is:
Sr. No. Heads Amount
1. Expenditure on treatment NIL
2. Expenditure on Conveyance 5,000/-
3. Expenditure on Special Diet 5,000/-
4. Expenditure on Attendant NIL
5. Cost of Artificial Limb NIL
6. Loss of earning during 10,000/-
period of treatment
7. NIL
Any other loss which may
require any special
treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his
life
8. NIL
Loss of Future Income &
loss of income
Misc. DJ No. 2951/2024 Page. 21 of 35
Suresh Kumar Rai Vs Raj Kumar & Anr.
Rs.20,000/-
TOTAL
Non-Pecuniary Heads
x. Compensation for Mental & Physical shock, Pain & Suffering and Loss of amenities (Non-Pecuniary):
51. As stated above, the claimant had suffered grievous injuries and permanent disability in the accident. This Tribunal is conscious of the fact that no amount of money can erase the trauma and grief that the victim has suffered, or the dignity and confidence that was shattered. No amount of money can compensate the agony that the victim has undergone, but it is hoped that some compensation can go a long way in alleviating a bit of the suffering that he has endured. An earnest effort has to be made to compensate him for the same in a just and reasonable manner.
52.The injured /petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs.5,000/-
towards mental and psychological shock, Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering, and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of amenities.
53.The injured has suffered simple injuries and keeping in view of the extent and nature of the injuries suffered by the claimant and duration of the treatment taken by him etc., an amount of Rs.5,000/- (each) is being awarded to him towards Misc. DJ No. 2951/2024 Page. 22 of 35 Suresh Kumar Rai Vs Raj Kumar & Anr.
(i) Pain and suffering, and (ii) mental and physical shock undergone by him. Further, an amount of Rs. 5,000/- is also awarded to him for Loss of amenities of life. Thus, compensation for Mental & Physical shock, Pain & Suffering and Loss of amenities is hereby quantified as Rs.15,000/- under this head.
xi. Loss of Marriage Prospects (Non-Pecuniary):
54.No amount is claimed under this head.
xii. Disfiguration (Non-Pecuniary):
55. A sum of Rs.5,000/- is claimed under this head. Injured admitted that he has suffered simple injuries and no evidence in respect of disfiguration is led by injured. Accordingly, the claim is declined under this head and treated as NIL.
xiii. Loss of earnings, inconvenience, hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress and unhappiness in future life etc. (Non- Pecuniary):
56.A sum of Rs.15,000/- is claimed under this head. Keeping in view of the overall facts and circumstances, the claim is quantified as Rs.5,000/- under this head.
57.Thus, the total amount awarded under Non- Pecuniary damages is:
Misc. DJ No. 2951/2024 Page. 23 of 35
Suresh Kumar Rai Vs Raj Kumar & Anr.
Sr. No Heads Amount
1. Compensation for Mental 5,000/-
& Physical shock
2. Pain & Suffering 5,000/-
3. Loss of amenities of life 5,000/-
4. Disfiguration -NIL-
5. Loss of Marriage Prospects -NIL-
6. Loss of earnings, 5,000/-
inconvenience, hardships,
disappointment,
frustration, mental stress
and unhappiness in future
life etc
TOTAL Rs.20,000/-
(a) Issue No.3: Relief.
i. Amount of Award:
58.Thus, the total amount of award, after adding Pecuniary damages (Rs.20,000/-) and Non Pecuniary damages(Rs.20,000/-) amounts to Rs.40,000/-.
59. Thus, the claimant is awarded as sum of Rs.40,000/- along with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of claim petition. The rate of interest has been calculated in terms of the succeeding paragraphs.
Misc. DJ No. 2951/2024 Page. 24 of 35
Suresh Kumar Rai Vs Raj Kumar & Anr.
ii. Rate of Interest:
60.It was contended by Ld Counsel for the respondent insurance company that the amount of interest ought to at @7.5%, in accordance with the general prevalent practice in Courts. However, Ld Counsel for the claimant sought 9% as the rate of interest.
61. In order to adjudicate these rival claims, recourse can be had to Erudhaya Priya v State Transport Corporation 2020 SCC OnLine SC 601 wherein the aspect of rate of interest was categorically enunciated as thus:
(c) The third and the last aspect is the interest rate claimed as 12% "15.In respect of the aforesaid, the appellant has watered down the interest rate during the course of hearing to 9% in view of the judicial pronouncements including in the Jagdish case (supra). On this aspect, once again, there was no serious dispute raised by the learned counsel for the respondent once the claim was confined to 9% in line with the interest rates applied by this Court"
62.Ergo, the amount of compensation/award amount will be payable by the respondent insurance company with simple interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the claim petition/DAR till actual realisation. The date of filing of DAR is 05.07.2024 therefore the amount of Interest is calculated at @ 9 % from the date of filing of petition (for 29 months) i.e. Rs.8,700/-. Thus, the total amount of award is Rs.48,700/-.
Misc. DJ No. 2951/2024 Page. 25 of 35 Suresh Kumar Rai Vs Raj Kumar & Anr.
63.It is also clarified that 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.
DEPOSIT OF AWARD& RELEASE/APPORTIONMENT iii. Deposit of Award:
64.In terms of the mandate of order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) the respondent Insurance Company/driver/owner shall deposit the award amount or transfer the same by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS directly to the bank account of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in UCO Bank, Patiala House Courts within 30 days of the award. The respondent(s) held liable to pay compensation by the Claims Tribunal shall give notice of deposit of the compensation amount to the claimant(s) and shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days of the deposit with the interest upto the date of notice of deposit to the claimant(s) with a copy to their counsel.
65.Release: In the present matter, complete award amount be released immediately to the claimant/injured in his bank Misc. DJ No. 2951/2024 Page. 26 of 35 Suresh Kumar Rai Vs Raj Kumar & Anr.
account through electronic mode opened/to be opened near the place of their residence, as directed vide Order dated 05.07.2024.
66.The Nodal officer of the bank shall ensure disbursement of the award within 3 weeks of receipt thereof by email or otherwise.
67.The disbursement to the claimant is, however, subject to the addition of future interest till deposit proportionately and also deduction of proportionate tax on the interest amount or amount of interim award, if any, to/from his share.
LIABILITY
68.The Insurance company has taken a plea that R-1/ driver-
cum-owner of the insured / offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence on the date of accident. It is also stated that as per blood sample report the R-1 driver-cum-owner had consumed alcohol beyond permissible limit. Accordingly, it is clear that there is breach of terms of policy.
69.It would be relevant to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Branch Manager, SBI General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Muthulakshmi and Others, 2025 SCC Online mad 2541 held that:
"17. In case, the insurer becomes successful in pleading and proving defences available to it under Section 150 Sub-Section 2, it need not honour its duty under the contract of insurance towards the insured. However, the statutory liability under Misc. DJ No. 2951/2024 Page. 27 of 35 Suresh Kumar Rai Vs Raj Kumar & Anr.
Section 150(1) towards third party remains unaffected, the natural corollary would be after making payment under Section 150 (1), the insurer is entitled to recover the said amount from the insured by virtue of its successful defence raised under Section 150 (2). The liability of insurer under Section 149 (1) [New Section 150 (1)] is a statutory liability and on the other hand it is concomitant with liability of insurer towards insured. If we say that the liability of insurer to satisfy award passed against insured is subject to terms and conditions of contract between insurer and insured, over which innocent third party victims have no control, the very object of statutory liability enshrined in Section 147 (1)(b) read with Section 149 (1) [New Section 147 (1)(b) read with Section 150 (1)] of Motor Vehicles Act will get defeated. The object of said provision is better served by concept of "pay and recovery" enunciated in Swaran Singh case cited infra. Infact, in Swaran Singh case (in paragraphs 96 and 97), the Apex Court emphasised that the concept of pay and recovery has been holding the field for a long time and the same need not be deviated. The concept of "pay and recovery" will achieve the object of providing hassle free mechanism for poor accident victims to recover the damages awarded to them with certainty and on the other hand it also takes care of insurer's right under contract of insurance by enabling insurer to recover the amount paid by it to third parties, which insurer is not bound to pay to the insured.
24. Therefore, if the insured is guilty of negligence or failed to exercise reasonable care in the matters of fulfilling conditions of the policy, the insurer is entitled to avoid its liability towards insured under the contract of insurance. However, its statutory liability under Section 149 (1) [now Section 150 (1)] towards innocent third parties remains unaffected. The insurer by virtue of its statutory liability shall pay the amount payable by the insured to the third party victims and recover the said amount from the insured as insurer is entitled to refuse indemnity in view of the breach committed by the insured."
Misc. DJ No. 2951/2024 Page. 28 of 35 Suresh Kumar Rai Vs Raj Kumar & Anr.
70. Accordingly in view of the aforesaid, insurance company is granted pay and recovery rights from R-1 / driver- cum-owner. Insurance company is directed to pay award amount to the petitioner with liberty to recover the same from R-1 driver-cum-owner. Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Branch, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in bank account being maintained in the above said bank in name of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal within 30 days from today, failing which it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of delay. In case even after lapse of 90 days from today, respondent no. 2 fails to deposit this compensation with interest, in that event, in light of judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal 2007 ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of respondent no. 2 with a cost of Rs.5,000/-.
71. The Insurance Company shall inform the petitioner and his counsel that the awarded amount has been deposited so as to facilitate him to collect the same.
Misc. DJ No. 2951/2024 Page. 29 of 35 Suresh Kumar Rai Vs Raj Kumar & Anr.
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES
72.Since this is a case pertaining to injury, particulars of Form-
XVI of the Scheme For Motor Accidents Claims Formulated by the Delhi High Court in terms of order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) are as under:
1. Date of accident : 27.11.2023
2. Name of the injured : Sh. Suresh Kumar Rai
3. Age of the injured : 38 Years
4. Occupation of the injured : Private Job.
5. Income of the injured : Rs.30,000/-
6. Nature of injury : Simple
7. Medical treatment taken by : Yes the injured
8. Period of hospitalization : As per record
9. Whether any permanent : N.A. disability?
10. Computation of Compensation Sr.No. Heads
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment : NIL
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance : Rs. 5,000 /-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet : Rs.5,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant : NIL (v) Cost of artificial limb NIL (vi) Loss of earning during : Rs.10,000/- period of treatment (vii) Loss of Income : NIL Misc. DJ No. 2951/2024 Page. 30 of 35 Suresh Kumar Rai Vs Raj Kumar & Anr. (viii) Any other loss which may NIL require any special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life. 12. Non-pecuniary Loss: (i) Compensation for mental : Rs.5,000/- and physical shock (ii) Pain and suffering : Rs.5,000/- (iii) Loss of amenities of life : Rs.5,000/- (iv) Disfiguration : -NIL- (v) Loss of marriage prospects : -NIL- (vi) Loss of earning, : Rs.5,000/- inconvenience, hardships, disappointment,frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc. 13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity (i) Percentage of disability : -N.A. assessed and nature of disability as permanent or temporary (ii) Loss of amenities or loss of : NIL expectation of life span on account of disability. (iii) Percentage of loss of : .NA. earning relation to disability (iv) Loss of future income & : -NIL- earning capacity 14. Total Compensation Rs.40,000/- 15. Interest Awarded : 16. Interest amount up to the : Rs.8,700/- Misc. DJ No. 2951/2024 Page. 31 of 35 Suresh Kumar Rai Vs Raj Kumar & Anr. date of award (29 Months) 17. Total amount including : Rs. 48,700/- interest 18. Award amount released : Complete award amount.
19. Award amount kept in the : As per para no. 65 of the judgment.
FDRs/ Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD)
20. Mode of disbursement of : ECS the award amount to the petitioner (s)
21. Next date for compliance : 09.06.2026 of the award COMPLIANCE QUA PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME
73. The particulars of Form XVII of the Scheme For Motor Accidents Claims Formulated by the Delhi High Court , in terms of order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) are as hereunder:
1. Date of the accident 27.11.2023
2. Date of filing of Form I- First N.A. Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the N.A. victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the N.A. Driver Misc. DJ No. 2951/2024 Page. 32 of 35 Suresh Kumar Rai Vs Raj Kumar & Anr.
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the N.A. owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- N.A. Interim Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and N.A. Form VIB from the Victim (s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII-Detailed 05.07.2024 Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or No. deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by the Insurance Company.
11. Whether the Designated Officer of No. the Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or No deficiencies on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the NA petitioner(s) of the offer of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the Award 06.05.2026
15. Whether the petitioner(s) were Yes.
directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
Misc. DJ No. 2951/2024 Page. 33 of 35 Suresh Kumar Rai Vs Raj Kumar & Anr.
16. Date of order by which petitioner(s) 05.07.2024 were directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the petitioner (s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s).
17. Date on which the petitioner(s) NA produced the passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of As mentioned above.
the petitioner(s)
19. Whether the petitioner(s) savings NA bank account(s) is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the petitioner(s) were No examined at the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
74.Further, in terms of the directions given vide order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra), the Ahlmad shall send a certified copy of this award to the concerned Criminal Court and to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority through e- mail. Copy of the award be also sent to the bank concerned. The Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII as per the directions given in the above case.
Misc. DJ No. 2951/2024 Page. 34 of 35 Suresh Kumar Rai Vs Raj Kumar & Anr.
75. File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary formalities. Separate file be prepared for compliance report and be put up on 09.06.2026.
Digitally signed by AbhilashAbhilash Malhotra Date:
Malhotra 2026.05.06 Announced in the open court 14:32:14 +0530 on 06.05.2026 (Abhilash Malhotra) Judge/PO, MACT-02, New Delhi/ 06.05.2026 DLND010055082024 Misc. DJ No. 2951/2024 Page. 35 of 35 Suresh Kumar Rai Vs Raj Kumar & Anr.