Delhi District Court
Naved (I) (Fir 808/2023/Kotwali) vs Manoj Kumar (Go Digit) on 3 July, 2025
DLCT010004722024
Presented on : 11-01-2024
Registered on : 11-01-2024
Decided on : 03-07-2025
Duration : 01 Year 06 Months
IN THE TRIBUNAL OF PRESIDING OFFICER-MACT-02,
(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED OVER BY DR. PANKAJ SHARMA
MACT NO. 41/24
NAVED
S/o Sh. Parvez Miya
R/o H.No. 10-B/14,
Bajarangbali Mohalla,
Maujpur, Delhi. .......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. MANOJ KUMAR
S/o Sh. Jawahar Seth
R/o H.No. 79, Gali No. 3,
Chajjapur, Shahdara, Delhi. (Driver)
2. LAL BABU SINGH
S/o Sh. Hirday Singh
R/o H.No. 817, Guru Ram Dass Nagar,
Extension Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. ( Regd. Owner)
3. DHANESH
S/o Sh. Tejpal
R/o H.No. 221, Ground Floor,
Devli Village, Delhi. ( Subsequent Owner)
4. GO DIGIT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
301, 3rd Floor, Harsh Bhawan,
Nehru Place, New Delhi. (Insurer).
(Through Ld. Counsel Sh.M.Awasthi)
.....Respondents
MACT No. 41/24 Naved Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 1/25
PANKAJ Digitally signed by
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.03
14:11:22 +0530
The particulars as per Form-XVII, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A) are as under:-
1. Date of the accident 22/06/23
2. Date of filing of Form-I - First Accident Report N.A. (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the victim(s) N.A.
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the Driver N.A.
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Owner N.A.
6. Date of filing of the Form-V-Interim Accident N.A. Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form-VIB N.A. from the Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - Detailed Accident 11/01/24 Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on No the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer Not by the Insurance Company mentioned
11. Whether the Designated Officer of the No Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on No the part of the Designated officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the petitioner(s) to the offer N.A. of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the award 03/07/25
15. Whether the petitioner (s) was/were directed to Yes open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which claimant(s) was/were 11/01/24 MACT No. 41/24 Naved Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 2/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.03 14:11:28 +0530 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 claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook.
17. Date on which the claimant(s) produced the N.A. 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 the H.No. 10-
Claimant(s). B/14,
Bajarangbali
Mohalla,
Maujpur,
Delhi.
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank N.A.
account(s) is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the N.A. time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
AWARD/JUDGMENT FACTUAL POSITION AND PLEADINGS
1. This DAR was filed on 11/01/2024 by the Investigating Officer in the presence of the parties. The DAR is related to a motor vehicular accident dated 22/06/2023 in which one Sh. Naved S/o Sh. Parvez Miya (hereinafter referred to as "petitioner") sustained grievous injuries. As per petitioner on 22/06/2023 at about 10.00 AM the Respondent No. 1 took the petitioner alongwith him for purchasing the good of their shop at Bhopura and when the Respondent no. 1 alongwith him came MACT No. 41/24 Naved Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 3/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.03 14:11:33 +0530 back from shop the Respondent No. 1 suddenly ran his vehicle i.e. an Auto bearing registration number DL-1RU-9491 (TSR) (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle") in rash and negligent manner. It is further stated that the petitioner tried to stop him and asked him to drive the vehicle slowly and carefully but the Respondent No. 1 did not listen to anything and he said he had to to reach as early as possible at the shop. It is further stated that at about 10.30 A.M, when they reached near Vijay Ghat Iron Bridge the said auto crashed with the divider and the said auto had flipped and the petitioner fell down and his left leg got broke. It is further stated that thereafter someone called to PCR from the crowd and the police took the petitioner for treatment at Lok Nayak Hospital, Delhi where the MLC was conducted vide no.115483005/2023. It is further stated that the petitioner suffered various injuries and his treatment is still continuing and till he has spent huge amount on his treatment. He seeks compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him the vehicular accident. It is further stated that at the time of accident he was 27 years of age and was doing the work of auto mechanic and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. An FIR no. 808/23 U/s 279/338 IPC PS Kotwali was registered by the police with respect to above accident. R-1 is stated to be the driver of the offending vehicle. R-2 is stated to be the Registered owner of the offending vehicle. R-3 is stated to be the Subsequent owner of the offending vehicle. R-4 is stated to be the insurer of the offending vehicle. DAR was treated as a claim petition. R-4/ insurance company was directed to file a legal offer/reasoned MACT No. 41/24 Naved Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 4/25 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.03 14:11:39 +0530 decision in response to the said DAR. R-1, R-2 and R-3 were also directed to file their Written Statements.
2. No written statement was filed by R-1, R-2 and R-3 and accordingly they were proceeded exparte vide order dated 08/05/2025 passed by this Tribunal.
3. R-4/Insurance Company filed a reply wherein it seeks to avoid liability on the ground that the offending vehicle driven by its driver did not have a valid and effective permit. However, it is admitted that at the relevant time the offending vehicle was covered by an insurance policy issued by itself.
ISSUES
4. Vide order dated 08/05/2025 the following issues were framed by this Tribunal :-
1.Whether the petitioner Naved suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 22.06.2023 at about 10.30 AM involving vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1RU-9491 driven by the respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently, owned by the respondent no. 2, subsequent owned by respondent no. 3 and insured with the respondent No.4?OPP.
2.Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.MACT No. 41/24 Naved Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 5/25 Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.03 14:11:42 +0530 EVIDENCE
5. The petitioner examined himself as PW-1 in support of his claim. The petitioner filed affidavit Ex. PW1/A wherein he described the occurrence of incident in line with the facts mentioned in Para 1 of this award. He deposed that he sustained grievous injuries at the relevant time. He further deposed that at the relevant time, he was 27 years of age and doing the work of auto mechanic and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. and due to injuries he has not been able to do his worked till date due to the said accident and he has sustained permanent disability to the extent of 31% with respect to his left lower limb. Petitioner has relied upon the following documents viz:-
"Ex. PW1/1 (OSR) is copy of Aadhar Card of PW-1;
Ex.PW1/2 is complete set of DAR; Ex.PW.1/3 is disability certificate.'' 5.1 PW-1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R-4/ Insurance Company. In his cross-examination he deposed that on the date of accident he was sitting with Respondent No. 1 on his seat at the rear side of the offending vehicle and the said vehicle was loaded with goods. He denied the suggestion that he was not admitted in the hospital. He further denied the suggestion that he was not earning Rs. 30,000/- per month while working as an auto mechanic at the time of accident. He further denied the suggestion that no accident has taken place involving the TSR bearing registration no. DL-1RU-9491 resulting in injury to himself. He further denied the suggestion that the the offending MACT No. 41/24 Naved Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 6/25 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.03 14:11:46 +0530 vehicle has been falsely implanted by him in collusion with police.
5.2 PE was then closed.
6. R-4/ Insurance Company examined one Sh. Rahul Kumar Manager (Legal), Go Digit General Insurance Company Ltd. He deposed vide his affidavit Ex.R4W1/A. He relied upon the following documents:-
''Ex.R4W1/1 is copy of Authority Letter of R4W1; Ex.R4W1/2 is the attested copy of the insurance policy;
Ex.R4W1/3 is the copy of notice dated 08.05.2025; Ex.R4W1/4 (Colly) are postal receipts.''.
6.1 He was not cross-examined.
ARGUMENTS AND FINDINGS
7. Oral submissions were advanced by Ld. Counsel for parties.
8. I have perused the record and my issue wise findings is as under:-
ISSUE NO.1 '"Whether the petitioner Naved suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 22.06.2023 at about 10.30 AM involving vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1RU-9491 driven by the respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently, owned by the respondents MACT No. 41/24 Naved Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 7/25 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.03 14:11:51 +0530 no. 2, subsequent owned by respondent no. 3 and insured with the respondent No.4?OPP.''
9. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court and in civil matters the facts are required to be established by preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable doubts as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is never as heavy as that is required in a criminal case, but in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and also recently in another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303.
10. As already discussed above, the petitioner examined himself as PW-1 in order to prove the factual averments regarding the occurrence of accident. PW-1 has clearly and categorically stated that at the relevant date, time and place, he the Respondent no. 1 took the petitioner alongwith him for purchasing the good of their shop at Bhopura and when the Respondent no. 1 alongwith him came back from shop the Respondent no. 1 suddenly ran his vehicle i.e. an Auto bearing MACT No. 41/24 Naved Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 8/25 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.03 14:11:54 +0530 registration number DL-1RU-9491 (TSR) (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle") in rash and negligent manner. It is further stated that the petitioner tried to stop him and asked him to drive the vehicle slowly and carefully but the Respondent No. 1 did not listen to anything and he said he had to to reach as early as possible at the shop. It is further stated that at about 10.30 A.M, when they reached near Vijay Ghat Iron Bridge the said auto crashed with the divider and the said auto had flipped and the petitioner fell down and his left leg got broke. It is further stated that thereafter someone called to PCR from the crowd and the police took the petitioner for treatment at Lok Nayak Hospital, Delhi where the MLC was conducted vide no.115483005/2023. It is further stated that the petitioner suffered various injuries and his treatment is still continuing and till he has spent huge amount on his treatment. He seeks compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him the vehicular accident. It is further stated that at the time of accident he was 27 years of age and was doing the work of auto mechanic and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. He further deposed that he suffered 31% permanent physical disability with respect to his left lower limb and he has became unemployable permanently. Petitioner claims compensation on account of special pecuniary damage relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicine, transportation, diet, loss of earning during the period, he was injured, loss of earning during the period of treatment, loss of future earning on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, non-pecuniary damages, damages for pain suffering and trauma, loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life. PW-1 was subjected to a cross-examination by Ld. MACT No. 41/24 Naved Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 9/25 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.03 14:11:58 +0530 Counsel for R-4/ Insurance Company. However, he remained consistent and seems to have withstood the test of cross- examination. He has declined all the suggestions of R-4/ Insurance Company imputing the occurrence of accident to his own negligence. There is nothing on record which betrays any falsity or untruth in the oral testimony of PW-1. As such, it could be safely held that the oral testimony of PW-1 is reliable and trustworthy.
11. The very fact that R-1 has already been chargesheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279/338 IPC in the above criminal case/FIR in itself is a strong circumstance to support the above oral testimony of PW1 and the case of petitioner on this issue. The copies of FIR, Chargesheet, Site plan, Mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle, medical papers, Seizure Memos and Arrest Memo of R-1 also corroborate the testimony of PW-1.
12. Besides the above, R-1 himself was the best witness who could have stepped into the witness box to challenge the depositions being made by PW-1 regarding the above accident and its manner etc., but he has not done so. Therefore, an adverse inference on this aspect is also required to be drawn against the respondents in view of the law laid down in case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.
13. In view of the above, it could be safely assumed that at the relevant time, R-1 was driving the offending vehicle in rash MACT No. 41/24 Naved Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 10/25 PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA 14:12:02 +0530 Date: 2025.07.03 and negligent manner in a high speed at the relevant time. In the absence of any averment or evidence regarding any mechanical defect in the offending vehicle or any material depicting any negligent/sudden act or omission on the part of the petitioner, the only inference possible in the given facts and circumstances is that of neglect and default on the part of R-1 in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is constrained to hold R-1 guilty of gross negligence and default in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time.
14. In view of the disability certificate, medical treatment documents placed on record by the petitioner, no dispute is left regarding the nature of injuries sustained by him in the above accident.
15. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal holds that the petitioner suffered grievous injuries on his person on account of negligence and default of R-1 while driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. This issue thus stands decided against the respondents and in favour of the petitioner.
ISSUE NO. 2"Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
16. As the issue no.1 has been proved in affirmative and in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner has become entitled to be compensated for the injuries suffered in the above accident, MACT No. 41/24 Naved Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 11/25 PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.03 14:12:06 +0530 but the computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be decided.
17. In terms of provisions contained in Section 168 of the MV Act the compensation which is to be awarded by this tribunal is required to be 'just'. In the injury cases a claimant is entitled to two different kinds of compensations i.e. Pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary damages. The "pecuniary damages" or special damages are those damages which are awarded and designed to make good the losses which are capable of being calculated in terms of money and the object of awarding these damages is to indemnify the claimant for the expenses which he had already incurred or is likely to incur in respect of the injuries suffered by him in the accident. The "non-pecuniary" or general damages are those damages which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. The pecuniary or special damages generally include the expenses incurred by the claimant towards his treatment, special diet, conveyance, cost of nursing/ attendant, loss of income/earning capacity etc. and the non- pecuniary damages generally include the compensation for the mental or physical shock, pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, marriage prospects and disfiguration etc. The above categories falling under both the heads of compensation are not exhaustive in nature but only illustrative. It is also necessary to state here that no amount of money or compensation can put the injured/claimant exactly in the same position or place where he was before the accident and an effort is to be made only to reasonably compensate him or to put him almost in the same MACT No. 41/24 Naved Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 12/25 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.03 14:12:09 +0530 place or position where he could have been if the alleged accident had not taken place and this compensation is to be assessed in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The object of compensating him is also not to reward him or to make him rich in an unjust manner. It is also well settled that the 'just' compensation to be awarded to the claimant has to be calculated objectively and it may involve some guess work in calculating the different amounts which the claimant may be entitled under the different heads of compensation. Further, in case of permanent disability, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earning, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. Reference in this regard can be made on some of important judgments on the subject like the judgment in the case of R.D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1995 SC 755, Arvind Kumar Mishra Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited, (2010) 10 SCC 254 and Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343.
18. In light of the above legal propositions, the amount of compensation which can be considered to be 'just' in the opinion of this tribunal shall be as under:-
(i) Medical or Treatment Expenses
19. No bill regarding treatment has been filed by injured. It is common knowledge that generally people during the treatment do not maintain the bills etc as they are not aware of this benevolent legislation having provisions for compensation. Keeping in view the overall circumstances, I hereby grant a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses.
MACT No. 41/24 Naved Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 13/25 Digitally signedPANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.03 14:12:14 +0530
(ii) Pain and Suffering
20. As per medical documents, the petitioner has suffered grievous injuries and also sustained 31% permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb. As per disability certificate no. 2123 dated 11/03/2025 issued by Aruna Asaf AliGovt. Hospital, Delhi, petitioner is a case of ''FUC Of Copd # BB Leg (Lt)'' and was found to have sustained 31% permanent physical impairment in relation to left lower limb.The aforementioned certificate was issued in terms of the directions of this Tribunal vide order dated 08/01/2025. Accordingly, the aforementioned disability certificate could be read in evidence in terms of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Union of India in Writ Petition (s) (Civil ) No (s). 534/2020 date of order 16/11/2021. It is not possible to quantify the compensation admissible to petitioner for the shock, pain and sufferings etc. which he actually suffered because of the above injuries, but as stated above, an effort has to be made to compensate him for the same in a just and reasonable manner. Hence, keeping in view the extent and nature of the injuries suffered by petitioner and duration of the treatment taken by him etc., an amount of Rs.50,000/- is being awarded to him towards pain and sufferings during the said period of his treatment and immobility. Thus, he is awarded a total amount of Rs. 50,000/- under this head.
MACT No. 41/24 Naved Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 14/25 Digitally signedPANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.03 14:12:18 +0530
(iii) Loss of income
21. In his affidavit Ex. PW1/A, the petitioner claims that he was 27 years of age and was doing the work of an Auto Mechanic and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. The medical records placed on record by petitioner reflect that the petitioner sustained a grievous injuries which resulted into 31% permanent physical disability with to left lower limb. The above documents are sufficient to uphold the claim of the petitioner to the effect that he was unable to resume his vocation since the date of accident. In view of the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner, it could be safely assumed that the petitioner has become unfit for work for rest of his life after the accident and he could not have worked for about 06 months due to the injuries. In the absence of any material as to the monthly earnings of the petitioner, it would be appropriate to assume the monthly earnings of the petitioner as per the Minimum Wages payable to an Un-Skilled-Person in Delhi as on the date of accident. Accordingly, the Minimum Wages admissible to Un- Skilled-Person as on 22/06/2023 in Delhi the earnings was Rs.17,234/-. As such, the petitioner is held entitled to a sum of Rs.1,03,404/- (Rs.17,234/- X 6). The said sum is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
(iv) Loss of future earnings due to disability
22. Petitioner claimed in his affidavit Ex. PW1/A that he has become permanently disabled after the accident and could not perform his work by resuming his duties. As per the facts the petitioner was assisting the R-1 in his auto work at the time of MACT No. 41/24 Naved Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 15/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.03 14:12:21 +0530 accident and as per disability certificate Ex. PW1/3, the petitioner has suffered 31% permanent physical impairment with respect to left lower limb which is non progressive and not likely to improve in future. As a multi tasking worker he has to have a strong body to do his daily work. Permanent Physical Disability in his Left Lower Limb would impede his working efficiency leading to functional disability. Therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances, the functional disability of petitioner is taken as 31%. This Tribunal has already assumed the monthly income of petitioner to be Rs.17,234/- at the relevant time. As far as the age of petitioner at the time of accident is concerned, we may look into the photocopy of petitioner's Aadhar Card which is Ex. PW1/1, as per the said document, the date of birth of petitioner was 04/03/1996. The date of accident is 22/06/2023. Going by the same, the age of petitioner as on the date of accident was around 27 years. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.,(2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been upheld by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment dated 31.10.2017 given in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, the multiplier of '17' is held applicable for calculating the loss of future earnings of petitioner arising out of his above disability. The petitioner is also entitled to 25% future prospects as per the observations made by a Three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Erudhaya Priya Vs. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., MANU/SC/0545/2020 MACT No. 41/24 Naved Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 16/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.03 14:12:25 +0530 [please see para 7 (b)]. Thus, the loss of future earnings of petitioner due to his above injury and permanent disability comes to Rs.15,25,829/- (rounded off) (Rs.17,234/- X 140/100 X 31/100 X 12 X 17 ) and the same is awarded to him as compensation under this head.
(v) Conveyance, Attendant Charges and Special Diet
23. In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the extent of permanent physical disability and the extended period of medical treatment, the petitioner is granted a sum of Rs. 35,000/- each under these heads.
(vi) Loss of amenities of life and disfigurement
24. In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the extent of permanent physical disability and the extended period of medical treatment, the petitioner is granted a sum of Rs. 35,000/- each under these heads.
Issue No.3/Relief
25. The petitioner is thus entitled to a sum of Rs.18,64,233/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand Two Hundred and Thirty Three Only) (Rs.10,000/- + Rs.50,000/- + Rs.1,03,404/- + Rs.15,25,829/- + Rs.35,000/- + Rs.35,000/- + Rs.35,000/- + Rs. 35,000/- + Rs.35,000/-) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the DAR i.e. 11/01/2024. Since no interim compensation has been awarded, therefore no deduction is applicable.
MACT No. 41/24 Naved Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 17/25 Digitally signed byPANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.03 14:12:28 +0530 RELEASE
26. Petitioner did not bother to appear before this Tribunal for recording his statement regarding financial needs and requirements.
26.1 Out of the awarded amount, Petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.19,00,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Only) and the said amount is directed to be kept with State Bank of India, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in MACAD in the form of 95 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 95 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 35, 36 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in his savings/MACT Claims SB Account as and when he furnishes the details of his bank account which is near the place of his residence to the Bank Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi under intimation to the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal. The remaining amount of Rs.2,15,904/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifteen Thousand Nine Hundred and Four Only) is also directed to be released into his above said account, which can be withdrawn and utilized by the Petitioner.
27. The Bank(s) shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the petitioner(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the petitioner(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and MACT No. 41/24 Naved Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 18/25 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.03 14:12:32 +0530 not a joint account(s). The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the SBI, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by the bank to the petitioner(s). The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credit by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the petitioner(s) near the place of their residence. No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of this Tribunal.
LIABILITY
28. On the point of liability, Ld. Counsel for R-4/ Insurance Company has submitted that R-1 was plying the offending vehicle without any valid and effective permit, it (R-4) is liable to be discharged. It has been noted by this Tribunal that R-1 & R-2 have failed to place any valid and effective permit of R-1 on record. Further, the R-4/ Insurance Company has examined one Sh. Rahul Kumar Manager (Legal) as R4W1 who deposed that at the time of accident the R-1/ driver was not having a valid and effective permit of the offending vehicle. Further, IO concerned has invoked Section 5/180 & 66/192 (A) of MV Act against R-2/ owner for not producing the valid and effective permit as on the date of accident. Accordingly, it could be safely inferred that R-1/ driver was driving the offending vehicle without any valid and effective permit at the time of accident. This entitles R-4 to be granted recovery rights against R-2/ Registered Owner and R-3/ Subsequent Owner. Ordered accordingly.
MACT No. 41/24 Naved Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 19/25PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.03 14:12:36 +0530
29. R-4/ Insurance Company is directed to deposit the above award amount within 30 days from the date of this Award by way of NEFT or RTGS mode in the account of this Tribunal maintained with SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (account holder's name-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal 02 Central, A/C No. 40743576901, IFSC Code SBIN0000726 under intimation to the petitioner and this Tribunal in terms of the format for remittance of compensation as provided in Divisional Manager Vs. Rajesh, 2016 SCC Online Mad. 1913 (and reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the orders dated 16.03.2021 and 16.11.2021 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors) along with interest @ 9% per annum, failing which it will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
30. A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of cost. Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. Further Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
MACT No. 41/24 Naved Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 20/25 Digitally signed byPANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.03 14:12:40 +0530
31. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurer as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
32. Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report and put Digitally signed by up the same on 04.08.2025. PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.03 14:12:45 +0530 Announced in the open court (DR. PANKAJ SHARMA) on this 03.07.2025 PO MACT-02 (CENTRAL) DELHI FORM - XVI, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A) SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE
1. Date of accident : 22/06/2023
2. Name of the injured : Sh. Naved
3. Age of the injured : 27 years MACT No. 41/24 Naved Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 21/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.07.03 14:12:49 +0530
4. Occupation of the injured : Auto Multi Tasking Worker
5. Income of the injured : Rs.17,234/- as per minimum wages of an Unskilled Person prevailing in Delhi at the relevant time
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by injured : Differnt Hospitals
8. Period of Hospitalization : Different Periods
9. Whether any permanent disability ? If yes, give details : YES
10. Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss (I) Expenditure on treatment Rs.10,000/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs.35,000/-
MACT No. 41/24 Naved Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 22/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJPANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.07.03 14:12:53 +0530
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs.35,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs.35,000/-
(v) Cost of artificial limb NIL
(vi) Loss of earning capacity NIL
(vii) Loss of Income Rs.1,03,404/-
(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 NIL
and physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.35,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration Rs.35,000/-
MACT No. 41/24 Naved Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 23/25
Digitally signed
PANKAJ SHARMA
by PANKAJ
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.03
14:12:57 +0530
(v) Loss of marriage prospects NIL
(vi) Loss of earning, N.A.
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 31% w.r.t. Left Lower Limb assessed and nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of N.A expectation of life span on account of disability 31%
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - Rs.15,25,829/-
(Income x % Earning Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL Rs.18,64,233/-
COMPENSATION MACT No. 41/24 Naved Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 24/25 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.03 14:13:02 +0530
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9% per annum
16. Interest amount up to the Rs.2,51,671/-(rounded off) date of award
17. Total amount including Rs.21,15,904/-
interest
18. Award amount released Rs.2,15,904/-
19. Award amount kept in As per award FDRs
20. Mode of disbursement of Mentioned in the award the award amount to the claimant(s)
21. Next date for compliance of 04.08.2025 the award.
CONCLUSION:-
1. As per award dated 03.07.2025.
2. A separate file is ordered to be prepared by the Nazir with directions to put up the same on 04.08.2025.Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.03 14:13:07 +0530 (DR. PANKAJ SHARMA) PO MACT-02 (CENTRAL) DELHI/03/07/2025 MACT No. 41/24 Naved Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 25/25 PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.03 14:13:11 +0530