Delhi District Court
Deepak Bainad vs Harkesh And Others on 25 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHILASH MALHOTRA
PRESIDING OFFICER: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-02 , PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:
DEEPAK BAINAD Vs. HARKESH & ORS.
MACT NO. 182/2021
Sh. Deepak Bainad
S/o Sh. Sultan Singh Bainad
R/o Bainad Colony,
Sakat, Alwar, Rajasthan -301408
...... Injured/Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh Harkesh
S/o Sh. Om Prakash
R/o 85 Dhansa Village,
New Delhi -110073 .... Driver/
Respondent no.1
2. Delhi Transport Corporation
Through its Depot Manager
Central Workshop No. 1,
Banda Bahadur Marg, Kingsway Camp,
New Delhi -110009
.... Owner/
Respondent no.2
3. M/s United India Insurance Company Ltd.
E-85, Himalya House, K. G. Marg,
Connaught Place, New Delhi -110001
....Insurance Company/Respondent no. 3
MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 1 of 65
Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors
Date of accident 22.07.2021
Date of filing of Petition 24.11.2021
Date of framing of issues 30.11.2023
Date of concluding arguments 10.04.2026
Date of decision 24.04.2026
AWARD/JUDGMENT
Index to the Judgment
BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE CLAIMANT(s)................................................4
FRAMING OF ISSUES...................................................................................... 5 EVIDENCE LED BY THE PARTIES................................................................5 ARGUMENTS OF COUNSELS OF THE PARTIES.......................................17 ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO......................................19 i. Presumption qua complicity upon filing chargesheet:...........................20 ii. Adverse inference qua driver:...............................................................22 iii. Preponderance of probabilities:...........................................................22 iv. Finding:................................................................................................ 23
(b) Issue No.1: Whether claimant is entitled to compensation, and to what amount?......................................................................................................... 24 i. Extent of disability:................................................................................24 ii. Principles qua assessment of compensation:........................................30 iii. Future prospects:.................................................................................34 iv. Expenditure on Treatment....................................................................38 v. Expenditure on Conveyance & Special Diet (Pecuniary):....................39 vi. Expenditure on Attendant (Pecuniary):...............................................40 vii. Cost of Artificial Limb:......................................................................40 viii. Loss of earning capacity.................................................................... 41 MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 2 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors ix. Loss of Income (during the period of treatment):................................41 x. Any other loss which may require any special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life....................................................................42 xi. Loss of Future Earnings on account of permanent disability (Pecuniary):...............................................................................................42 xii. Any other loss which may require any special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life i.e. physiotherapy treatment.......................45 xiii.Loss of Future Income & loss of income..........................................45 xiv. Future Physiotherapy Treatment expenses........................................45 TOTAL.....................................................................................................46 Non-Pecuniary Heads.............................................................................. 46 xv. Compensation for Mental & Physical shock, Pain & Suffering and Loss of amenities (Non-Pecuniary):.........................................................46 xvi. Loss of Marriage Prospects (Non-Pecuniary):..................................47 xvii. Disfiguration (Non-Pecuniary):........................................................47 xviii. Loss of earnings, inconvenience, hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress and unhappiness in future life etc. (Non- Pecuniary):................................................................................................ 48
(b) Issue No.3: Relief.....................................................................................49 i. Amount of Award:..................................................................................49 ii. Rate of Interest:....................................................................................49 iii. Deposit of Award:................................................................................ 51 iv. Disbursement of the award amount & protection thereof:...................52 LIABILITY.......................................................................................................54 SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES............................................................................................................... 55 COMPLIANCE QUA PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME...............................58 MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 3 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE CLAIMANT(s)
1. In present case, FIR bearing no. 367/2021 was registered in PS Janak Puri, Delhi on the complaint made by complainant Mr. Deepak Bainad against driver / R-1 Sh. Harkesh. A charge sheet was filed by the police against the driver / R-1 Sh. Harkesh under Section 279/338 IPC, on the charges of rash driving of driver / R-1 Mr. Harkesh. It is stated that on 22.07.2021, the injured / petitioner was going to his office by riding his motor cycle bearing registration no. DL-9S- BD-0468 and when he reached near C-2 Community Centre, Opposite CGHS Dispensary, Dabri Mor to Janakpuri Super Specialty Hospital Road, Janakpur, Delhi at about 8:20 a.m, when all of a sudden, R-1/ driver who was driving the offending vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1PC-7481 in a rash and negligent manner without following the rules of the road and at a very high speed, without blowing the horn, hit the motorcycle of the injured /petitioner from behind and due to the said impact, the petitioner fell down on the road and the right leg of the petitioner came under the left side tyre of the offending vehicle and petitioner sustained grievous injuries.
2. As per the charge sheet, the vehicle was driven by respondent no. 1 driver, owned by respondent no 2 and insured with respondent no. 3 Insurance company.
MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 4 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors
3. Respondent no. 1 & 2 filed their reply and R-3/Insurance Company filed its legal offer.
4. During the proceedings issues were framed on 30.11.2023 Thereafter the written submissions were filed by the claimant / petitioner in the prescribed format.
FRAMING OF ISSUES
5. Vide order dated 30.11.2023, following issues were framed by this Tribunal:-
"1. Whether the injured Sh. Deepak Bainad sustained grievous injuries in the accident which occurred on 22.07.2021 at about 8:20 a.m. near C-2, Community Centre, Opposite CGHS Dispensary, Dabri Mor to Janakpuri Super Speciality Hospital Road, Janakpur, Delhi caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. DL-1PC-7481 being driven by respondent no.1 owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3?OPP
2. Whether the injured is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief."
EVIDENCE LED BY THE PARTIES
6. In the proceedings conducted before the Tribunal, the following witnesses were examined, succinct testimonies whereof are as follows: PW-1 is Mr. Gorav, Junior Medical MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 5 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors Record Officer, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi-110060. He proved on record authority letter given by Ms. Puja Singh, Senior Medical Record Officer, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi which is Ex. PW 1/1. He also proved the discharge summary and final bill Ex. PW-1/2(Colly).
7. PW-1 in his testimony that injured Mr. Deepak Bainad was admitted in their hospital on 23.07.2021 and was discharged (Lama) on 29.07.2021. Final bill of Rs.5,89,952/- was issued by the hospital for hospitalization and treatment and the same was paid by the injured.
8. PW-2 is Mr. Mohit Tyagi, B.P.T., D.P.T. (Physiotherapist and Rehabilitation Fitness Expert). He proved on record his Registration Certificate as Ex. PW 2/A; Copy of degree of Bachelor of Therapy as Ex. PW 2/B and 10 bills issued by him for therapy given to the injured Ex. PW 2/C (Colly).
9. PW-2 stated that he provided treatment and therapy to injured Mr. Deepak Bainad at his residence w.e.f. December, 2021 to November, 2022 and used to charge Rs.600/- per Session.
10.In his testimony he stated that injured / petitioner is a case of RTA post-surgical right lower limb with external fixator, weakness in lower limb. Due to the injuries sustained by him, he requires physiotherapy throughout his life in order to avoid further deterioration and to maintain muscle strength and range of motion. He further submitted that the patient / MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 6 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors injured cannot travel in any of the public transport such as metro, bus etc. independently (without any attendant). He cannot do any standing work, kneeling, squatting, standing and sitting with cross legs would be the next to impossible for him for whole life.
11.PW-2 stated that injured cannot do his day to day chores without help of others and will require the help of attendant.
12.PW-2 was not cross examined by R-1, R-2 and R-3 despite grant of opportunity.
13.PW-3 is injured Mr. Deepak Bainad. He tendered his affidavit by way of evidence which is Ex. PW 3/A. He proved on record the following documents viz., Copy of Aadhar Card, PAN Card and Driving License are as Ex. PW 3/1, as Ex. PW 3/2 and as Ex. PW 3/3; Copy of RC of motor cycle as Ex. PW 3/ 4, Copy of qualification documents as Ex. PW 3/ 5; Original registration card and treatment documents issued by Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital are as Ex. PW 3/6 (Colly); Original OPD registration card issued by Dr. RML Hospital as Ex. PW 3/ 7; Original discharge summary issued by Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi as Ex. PW 3/ 8 (Colly); Original discharge summary issued by Khandaka Hospital, Jaipur Rajasthan as Ex. PW 3/ 9 (Colly); Original treatment documents/OPD cards/ reports issued by Khandaka Hospital, Jaipur Rajasthan as Ex. PW 3/ 10 (Colly); Copy of treatment documents / OPD as marked 'A'; Original bills of Rs.55,732/-
MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 7 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors on account of initial treatment at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi as Ex. PW 3/ 11 (Colly); Original final bill for a sum of Rs.5,89,952/- issued by Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi as Ex. PW 3/ 12 (Colly); Original final bill of Rs.2,50,000/- issued by M/s Khandaka Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan as Ex. PW 3/ 13 (Colly); Original bills of Rs.5,90,602.35 issued on account of medicines, OPD charges/ fees tests are as Ex. PW 3/ 14 (Colly); Attested salary slips of July -September, 2021 as Ex. PW 3/ 15 (Colly); Bank account statement w.e.f. 24.07.2021 to 23.10.2021 as Ex. PW 3/ 16 (Colly); Photographs showing injuries as Ex. PW 3/ 17 (Colly); Certified copy of DAR along with copy of order dated 07.09.2022 where DAR was disposed off as withdrawn as Ex. PW 3/ 18 (Colly); Original Ambulance bills of Rs.35,600/- as Ex. PW 3/ 19 (Colly).
14.In his testimony he stated that on 22.07.2021 he was going to his office by riding his motor cycle bearing registration no. DL-9S-BD-0468 and when he reached near C-2 Community Centre, Opposite CGHS Dispensary, Dabri Mor to Janakpuri Super Specialty Hospital Road, Janakpuri, Delhi at about 8:20 a.m, then all of a sudden, R-1/ driver who was driving the offending vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1PC-7481 in a rash and negligent manner without following the rules of the road and at a very high speed, without blowing the horn, hit his motorcycle from behind and due to the said impact, the MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 8 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors injured /petitioner fell down on the road and the right leg of the petitioner came under the left side tyre of the offending vehicle due to which injured /petitioner sustained grievous injuries.
15.He stated that after the accident, he was taken to DDU Hospital, New Delhi where his MLC was done and he was referred to Dr. RML Hospital, New Delhi and from where, he was shifted to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi.
16.PW-3 further stated that he sustained multiple grievous injuries including the post traumatic degloving injury right lower limb with grade III Liver laceration with fracture Pelvis with left open elbow. Degloving injury right lower limb extending from mid-thigh till ankle with skin loss over medial aspect of lower thigh and leg & open knee joint. Loss of medial condyle of femur. Upper 2/3rd tibia exposed. Knee joint found to be subluxed and unstable. Medial femoral condyle and medial tibial condyle found shaved out (bone loss present).
17.PW-3 further stated that he reached Sir Ganga Ram Hospital New Delhi on 22.07.2021 where his initial treatment / examination was done by the doctors and upon advice, he was admitted in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital on 23.07.2021 and he underwent operation/ surgery for his fractures and he was discharged on 29.07.2021 from the said hospital. Apart from MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 9 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors other expenses, a sum of Rs.5,89,952/- was incurred on account of final bill issued by the said hospitalization.
18.PW-3 further stated that due to heavy billing/expenses of treatment at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi, he was shifted to M/s Khandaka Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan on 30.07.2021 through Ambulance. In the said hospital, he again underwent operation/ surgery and was discharged on 17.08.2021. Apart from other expenses, a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was paid on account of final bill issued for the said hospitalization by the said hospital.
19.PW-3 stated that he was advised follow up treatment and some medicines were prescribed by the Doctors attending on him for the restoration of his health. He stated that his health was getting deteriorated badly on account of the said road accident and he was advised special diet as he had become a physical wreck as being confined to bed.
20.PW-3 stated that he took the services of a doctor namely Mr. Amar Prakash for dressing purposes and the said doctor visited the house of the deponent initially for one month on daily basis and thereafter he visited alternatively for 15 days. The said doctor charged Rs.800/- per visit. A total sum of Rs.35,000/- approximately was spent on dressing purposes during the said period.
21.PW-3 stated that he was advised to take physiotherapy throughout his life to avoid further deterioration and to MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 10 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors maintain muscle strength and therefore, he took the physiotherapy treatment from Dr. Mohit Tyagi, B.P.T., D.P.T., WZ-59, Keshopur Village, Vikaspuri, Delhi-110018 and paid a sum of Rs.600/- per session/visit towards physiotherapy treatment at home for the period w.e.f. December, 2021 to November, 2022, and spent/paid a sum of Rs.1,43,400/- (Rupees one lakh forty three thousand four hundred only).
22.PW-3 stated that he sustained permanent disability. His permanent disability has been determined/assessed by the Medical Board of Dr. RML Hospital to the extent of 55% in relation to right lower limb. He stated that due to injury he was not able to do his daily routine work without any help and support and not able to hire any attendant due to lack of funds. He stated that he is not able to walk without any support and cannot travel independently and need an attendant throughout his life.
23.PW-3 stated that on the date of accident, he was about 27 years 06 months old. He is a graduate and also holding a Diploma in General Nursing & Midwifery. He stated that on the date of accident, he was working as Emergency Medical Technician (EMT-A1) with M/s GVK Emergency Management and Research Institute, Devar Yamzal, Medchal Road, Secunderabad, Hydrabad - 500014 and having Delhi office at 3rd Floor, T-2, 90, New Rajdhani Enclave, Preet Vihar, Delhi- 110092 and was posted at CAT Ambulance at MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 11 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors Janakpuri Super-speciality Hospital, Janak Puri, New Delhi. He was getting account payee salary of Rs.20,095/- per month and was a permanent employee of the company. It is further stated that some deductions were also made from his monthly salary on account of PF and ESI. He stated that the nature of his job was to participate in rescue operation and accident scene and moving patient to health care facilities. After rescue of patient, he was responsible for cleaning and decontaminating ambulance and equipments and re-stocking the supplies.
24.PW3 stated that after this accident on 22.07.2021 he never joined his services due to the injuries suffered by him. He lost his earning capacity completely and would not be able to work as an Emergency Medical Technician in future because of the injuries sustained in the accident. He had spent a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- approximately on special diet for early recovery.
25.PW-3 in his cross examination stated that his permanent address is of Rajasthan and he came in Delhi in the month of November- December, 2018 for working in Delhi and started living in Delhi Cantt. He stated that he was working as emergency medical technician in ambulance and his duty hours were for 12 hours.
MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 12 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors
26.PW-3 stated that he is married and having two children from the marriage. His wife is home maker and his father is a retired teacher.
27.PW-3 further stated that the accident took place when he was standing at the red light and the offending DTC bus hit his motorcycle from behind. It is stated that no other vehicle was hit by the said bus. It is stated that guard / marshal of the said DTC bus took him to DDU Hospital, Hari Nagar, Delhi from where he was referred to Dr. RML Hospital and then to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi.
28.He stated that amputation of his right leg was advised by the doctors but as the treatment was very expensive he got admission at Khandaka Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
29.He admitted that some deductions were made towards ESI coverage by his employer from the salary, but clarified that no claim was taken by him from ESI. He stated that no application was made by him to the ESI in this regard.
30.He admitted that he has not placed on record any documents showing expenditure of Rs.2,00,000/- incurred on special diet and Rs. 3,00,000/- on transport or conveyance.
31.He admitted that he has not filed on record application given to his employer seeking medical leaves. He admitted that no termination letter was received by him from his employer. He stated that Mr. Dalip informed him that some other official has been engaged in his place.
MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 13 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors
32.He admitted that no document is placed on record showing payment of Rs.35,000/- to Mr. Amar Praksh as mentioned in the page 9 of the affidavit.
33.He stated that he is currently unemployed and his household expenses are borne by his father out of his pension.
34.He denied that accident had occurred due to his own negligence. He denied the suggestion that the bill dated 17.08.2021 for Rs.2,50,000/- and bill of Rs.5,90,602/- are forged bills.
35.PW-4 is Mr. Sachin Pathak, Deputy Manager, (HR) from M/s GVK Emergency Management & Research Institute, Preet Vihar, Delhi. He proved on record the following documents viz., Authority Letter as Ex. PW 4/1; Copy of Aadhar Card as Ex. PW 4/ 2; Copy of appointment letter dated 21.12.2019 as Ex. PW 4/ 3 (Colly); Attested copy of letter dated 31.07.2021 whereby salary was lastly revised to Rs.20,095/- per month as Ex. PW 4/ 4; Attested copy of salary slips of June and July, 2021 are Ex. PW 4/ 5 & Ex. PW 4/ 6.
36.PW-4 in his testimony stated that injured Mr. Deepak Bainad was working with their organization as Emergency Medical Technician w.e.f. 21.12.2019. It is stated that on the date of accident he was posted at CAT Ambulance, Jankpuri Super Specialty Hospital, New Delhi. He stated the job of Mr. Deepak Bainad was to participate in rescue operation and MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 14 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors accident scene and moving patient betwen health care facilities.
37.PW-4 stated that initial salary of Mr. Deepak Bainad was Rs.17,762/- per month which was revised from time to time on yearly basis. He stated that his salary was revised vide letter dated 31.07.2021 and his gross revised salary was Rs.20,095/- w.e.f 01.04.2021.
38.PW-4 stated that services of Mr. Deepak Bainad have been terminated vide letter 28.02.2023 as he could not join the company after the accident despite issuance of letter dated 25.01.2023, 06.02.2023 and 15.02.2023.
39.PW-4 is Mr. Sachin Pathak was examined in chief on 27.02.2024 and thereafter he left the service. Vide order dated 01.08.2025 the Tribunal permitted examination of PW-6 Ms. Sonam Singh, HR from M/s GVK Emergency Management & Research Institute in his place.
40.PW-6 is Ms. Sonam Singh had proved on record the following documents viz., Authority Letter as Ex. PW 6/1; Copy of Identity Card as Ex. PW 6/ 2; Copy of appointment letter dated 21.12.2019 as Ex. PW 6/ 3 (Colly); Copy of letter dated 31.07.2021 where the salary was lastly revised to Rs.20,095/- per month as Ex. PW 6/ 4; Copy of salary slips of June, 2021 and July, 2021 as as Ex. PW 6/ 5 & Ex. PW 6/ 6; Copies of three letters dated 25.01.2023, 06.02.2023 and 15.02.2023 are as Ex. PW 6/ 7 (Colly). PW-6 reiterated the MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 15 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors fact of employment of Mr. Deepak Bainad with their organization. She confirmed that the salary of Mr. Deepak Bainad was Rs.20,095/- per month. She reiterated that the services of Mr. Deepak Bainad was terminated on 28.02.2023.
41.R-1 and R-2 did not conduct any cross examination of PW-6.
42.In her cross examination by the Insurance company, PW-6 denied that salary of Rs.20,095/- was paid in cash. She clarified that no compensation was paid to the injured after the accident by their company.
43.PW-5 is Dr. Sukhvinder Singh Basran, Specialist, Grade-I, Orthopedics from Dr. RML Hospital, New Delhi. He proved on record Disability Certificate dated 27.09.2023 which is Ex. PW 5/1.
44.In his testimony he stated that he was a member of the Medical Board constituted by the Medical Superintendent, Dr. R.M.L. Hospital and examined the patient Mr. Deepak Bainad and issued the disability certificate dated 27.09.2023.
45.He stated that patient was a case of crush injury, right lower limb and abdominal injury. The patient suffered 55% physical impairment in relation to his right lower limb. The disability is permanent in nature and not likely to improve in future.
46.He stated that the patient is having stiffness in right knee with difficulty in squatting, kneeling with scarring. He stated that due to the aforesaid disability injured / patient will not be able to do his daily chores / work of his own involving his right MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 16 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors limb and require assistance help for the same throughout his life. He stated that the patient cannot travel independently and require crutches / support of the same. He stated that patient cannot do any field job such as labourer, standing or anything which requires movements. He further stated that the patient cannot sit with cross legs and cannot ride bicycle , motor cycle or any two wheeler.
47.PW-5 stated that the patient requires long term physiotherapy in order to maintain muscle strength and to avoid further deterioration.
48.PW-5 was not cross examined by R-1, R-2 and R-3 despite grant of opportunity ARGUMENTS OF COUNSELS OF THE PARTIES
49.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.
50.It is argued that R-1 and R-2 did not dispute the accident in their reply and no evidence was led by them to dispute the factum of rashness as concluded by the police in the charge sheet.
51.It is argued that the Insurance company also did not dispute the factum of rashness and has made a legal offer in the MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 17 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors present case, and he only issue which needs to be decided is the quantum of compensation.
52.It is argued that as per the medical reports and the testimony of doctors, the injured had suffered 55% permanent disability in right lower limb. The injured has lost his job and currently unemployed. PW-5 Dr. Sukhvinder Singh Basran and PW-2 Mr. Mohit Taygi clarified that injured will require assistance through out his life and will not be able to do daily chores independently. It is submitted that the injured will require physiotherapy services throughout his life and also require the services of an attendant. It is submitted that due to the injury the injured become unemployed and not in a position to do any job and 100% functional disability / loss of earning be considered for the purposes of calculation of future income.
53.R-1 and R-2 filed their joint reply in the Tribunal wherein they stated that accident occurred due to negligence of injured Deepak Bainad. It is stated that R-1 driver was driving his vehicle in proper manner and as per rules. It is stated that vehicle was insured with R-3 Insurance company and liability, (if any) to pay compensation is of insurance company. It is stated that police officials had not investigated the matter properly. It is admitted that after the accident the injured admitted to DDU hospital where his MLC was done and from there he was taken to Dr. RML Hospital and thereafter to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital.
MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 18 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors
54. The Insurance company had filed legal offer. Ld. Counsel for Insurance company submitted that the functional disability cannot be considered as 100%. He submitted that the permanent disability is suffered by the petitioner only in respect of right lower limb and the percentage in relation to the whole body can only be 27.5%. (Though in the legal offer, the Insurance company has considered loss of earning capacity as 40% against the disability of 55%). It is also submitted that the claim sought by the injured in the non- pecuniary is astronomically high and reasonable compensation needs to be provided. It is submitted that claim of loss of salary and future income is causing duplication.
ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO
55. Issue No.1: Whether the injured Sh. Deepak Bainad sustained grievous injuries in the accident which occurred on 22.07.2021 at about 8:20 a.m. near C-2, Community Centre, Opposite CGHS Dispensary, Dabri Mor to Janakpuri Super Speciality Hospital Road, Janakpur, Delhi caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. DL-1PC-7481 being driven by respondent no.1 owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3?OPP i. Presumption qua complicity upon filing chargesheet:
56.Rule 21 of Annexure XIII of The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 mandates as follows:-
MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 19 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors
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 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.
57. 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........".
58. 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 MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 20 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors 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."
59.In the present case, not only the FIR was registered but charge sheet was filed qua respondent no 1 driver u/s 279/338 IPC in the Court.
60.PW-3 is Mr. Deepak Bainad is injured and the eye witness. He gave clear account of the manner in which the accident had occurred. R-1 and R-2 in their reply did not dispute the fact that the accident had occurred from their bus. Though R-1 and R-2 had taken a plea that the accident had occurred due to negligence of injured himself, but they failed to lead any evidence to substantiate their plea. Insurance company did not dispute the factum of rashness and made a legal offer in the present case. The bone of contention which remained pending for consideration is the quantum of compensation.
61.Accordingly, it is clear from the record that the accident had occurred due to rash driving by the driver of insured vehicle bearing registration number DL-1PC-7481.
ii. Adverse inference qua driver:
62. 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 MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 21 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors 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.
iii. Preponderance of probabilities:
63.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.
64.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, MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 22 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors 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 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:
65.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-1PC-7481 and the said vehicle at that time was driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured by respondent no.3. Hence, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the claimant and against the respondents.
MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 23 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors (b) Issue No.2: Whether claimant is entitled to compensation, and to what amount? i. Extent of disability:
66.Petitioner has placed on record the Disability Assessment Certificate dated 27.09.2023 Ex. PW 5/1 issued by the Medical Board of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital. The contents of the said Certificate are reproduced here-in-below:-
The undersigned Medical Board member have examined Sh. Deepak Bainad with A/H/O RTA on 22.07.2021 with crush injury right lower limb and abdominal injury. He has stiffness in right kneee with difficulty in squatting / kneeling with scarring.
He has 55% PPI in relation to his right lower limb.
67.The said certificate shows that the injured had suffered 55% permanent disability in relation to his right lower limb.
68.PW 5 Dr. Sukhvinder Singh Basran who was the Member of the Medical Board, in his testimony stated that patient was a case of crush injury right lower limb and abdominal injury and suffered 55% permanent physical impairment in relation to his right lower limb. The disability is permanent in nature and not likely to improve in future. He stated that the patient is having stiffness in right knee with difficulty in squatting, kneeling with scarring. He stated that due to the aforesaid disability injured / patient will not be able to do his daily chores / work of his own involving his right limb and require MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 24 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors assistance help for the same throughout his life. He stated that the patient cannot travel independently and require crutches / support of the same. He stated that patient cannot do any filed job such as labourer, standing which requires movements. Patient cannot sit with cross legs and cannot ride bicycle, motorcycle or any two wheeler. He also emphasized that patient requires long term physiotherapy in order to maintain muscle strength and to avoid further deterioration.
69. PW-3 injured Deepak in his testimony also stated that he is not able to perform his routine work without any support and requires an attendant throughout his life. He also stated due to injury he had lost his complete earning capacity.
70.Before proceeding further to analyze the aspect of functional disability, it would be prudent to refer to the case law laid down by the Higher Courts. It is trite that the test to determine the functional disability has been laid down in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343 as thus:
"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."
71.It would be apposite to peruse the following directions for assessment of functional disability as laid down vide order dated 09.03.2018 in Rajesh Tyagi & Ors Vs. Jaiveer Singh & Ors, FAO No. 842/2003 dated 09.03.2018 as thus:
MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 25 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors
6. Directions for assessment of functional disability by the Claims Tribunal "6.1. All injuries or permanent disability arising from injuries do not result in loss of earning capacity.
6.2. The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person should not be mechanically 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 percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability).
6.3. The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence of his medical opinion with regard to the extent of permanent disability. However, the loss of earning capacity is something to be assessed by the Claims Tribunal with reference to the evidence in its entirety.
6.4. 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.
6.5. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps:
(i) 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).
(ii) The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age.
(iii) The third step is to find out whether :
MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 26 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors
a) The claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or
b) 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
c) 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. "
72. In Sarnam Singh Vs. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 3900/2023 dated 04.07.2023 (SC), 2023 INSC 597 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further elucidated upon the concept of functional disability as follows:
"9. As to how compensation, in case where permanent disability of an injured affects his functional disability, is to be assessed has been considered by this Court, repeatedly. Reference can be made to the judgment of this court in Mohan Soni vs Ram Avtar Tomar and Others. In the aforesaid case the injured was working as a cart puller. As a result of the accident, his left leg was amputated. His permanent disability was assessed at 60%. The Tribunal assessed the compensation taking the loss of earning at 50% on the theory that he can still do some other work while sitting. The High Court did not disturb the finding regarding loss of the income on account of disability. This Court found that the Tribunal was in error in taking the loss of earning at 50% as the injured was 55 years of age and it may be difficult for him to find a job at that stage. In fact, any physical disability resulting from an accident has to be judged with reference to the nature of the work being performed by the person who suffered disability.
MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 27 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors The same injury sufferd by two different persons may affect them in different ways. Loss of leg by a farmer or a rickshaw puller may be end of the road as far as his earning capacity is concerned. Whereas, in case of the persons engaged in some kind of desk work in office, loss of leg may have lesser effect. This Court enhanced the loss of earning capacity from 50% to 90%."
73. It is a matter of record that as per the disability assessment certificate issued by the Medical Board, the injured has suffered 55% permanent disability in relation to his right lower limb. The insurance company in their legal offer filed earlier considered the loss of earning capacity as 40% against the permanent disability of 55%. Thereafter, Insurance company improved their stand in the written statement and has reduced the loss of earning factor to 27.5%.
74.The petitioner has examined medical witnesses PW-2 Mr. Mohit Tyagi and PW-5 Dr. Sukhvinder Singh Basran. Both the witnesses highlighted the fact that the petitioner will not be able to perform normal chores during his life time without any assistance. Witnesses highlighted that the petitioner will face trouble in travelling without any attendant. They also highlighted the need of life long physiotherapy.
75.It is settled legal position that in order to determine the loss of earning capacity, the nature of avocation and the impact of injury on its performance needs to be ascertained. In the present case the injured was working in CAT Ambulance and was involved in rescue operation of accident victims. Such MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 28 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors rescue operations involved agile movements to handle the injured, lifting them to the ambulance, providing life saving treatment in the ambulance, de-contaminating ambulance and stocking etc. It is clear from the testimony of PW-6 Ms. Sonam Singh that despite issuance of three notices, injured was not able to join his job and finally his job was terminated. Non-joining of job by the injured patently reflects his incapacity to perform his work. Injured has claimed loss of 100% earning capacity as the injured has become unemployed after the accident. The Tribunal cannot loose sight of the fact that injured is not an illiterate person. As per his testimony, he is a graduate and done diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery. Though it is clear that the injured will not perform the kind of job he was performing earlier, but it is not a case that with the education at his hands he cannot find any sitting / clerical /official job. Therefore, considering the nature of employment of injured and his education, the loss of earning capacity is assessed as 60%.
ii. Principles qua assessment of compensation:
76.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 & MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 29 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors 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.
77.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 MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 30 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors 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:
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) MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 31 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors
(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."
78.The claimant filed prescribed of the Scheme for Motor Accident Claims qua the above heads pertaining to pecuniary and non pecuniary damages.
79. 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 MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 32 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors 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.
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]"
80. 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:
MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 33 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors "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."
81.The assessment of pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary damages is discussed in the succeeding paragraphs.
iii. Future prospects:
82.The injury sustained by the claimant has a bearing on his future prospects to eke out a living in the same manner as he would have prior to the accident. To factor into account future prospects, several guidelines have been laid down.
83. In this context, it would be apt to refer to National Insurance Co Ltd v Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 wherein it was laid down as thus:
"59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:
59.3 While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 34 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
59.4 In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. 59.5 For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paras 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
59.6 The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] read with para 42 of that judgment 59.7 The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. 59.8 Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years."
84. Even though the above judgment deals with cases of fatality, it is no longer res integra that the above principles apply to cases of injury also. Reliance is placed on Pappu De Deo MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 35 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors Yadav v. Naresh Kumar, (2022) 13 SCC 790 wherein it was held as follows:
"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 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 [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] 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 [Jagdish v. Mohan, (2018) 4 SCC 571 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 102 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 572] was not binding, but rather that the subsequent decision in Anant [Anant v. Pratap, (2018) 9 SCC 450 :
(2018) 4 SCC (Civ) 378 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 756] 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 Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] is illogical, because it denies altogether the 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."
MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 36 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors
85.PW-3 injured has placed on record his employment details.
He stated that he was earring a salary of Rs.20,095/- per month. PW-6 Ms. Sonam Singh also proved on record the employment record of the injured and proved salary slips. As per the employment record, the injured was earning a sum of Rs.20,095/-at the time of accident. The said salary is also not disputed by the insurance company as in their legal offer they have relied upon the same salary for computation of the income.
86.As per the Aadhar card of injured filed on record the date of birth of injured Deepak Bainad is 24.05.1994. The date of accident is 22.07.2021. On the date of accident, the injured was 27 years and 01 months old. As per mandate in Sarla Verma (Supra) and Pranay Sethi (Supra) the future prospects for a person having age less than 40 years and in permanent job is determined as 50%. Accordingly, the future prospects are hereby determined as Rs. 10,047/-. The monthly salary is quantified as Rs.30,142/-.
PECUNIARY LOSS iv. Expenditure on Treatment
87.Ld Counsel for claimant contended that injured was hospitalized initially in DDU Hospital, Delhi and thereafter shifted to Dr. R.M.L hospital. Due to medical complications, MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 37 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors the injured was transferred to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital where he incurred expenses of Rs. 5,89,952/-.The discharge summary of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital is Ex. PW 3/8 and the bill of Rs.5,89,952 is Ex. PW 3/12 (Colly), the bill of Rs. 55,732/- is Ex. PW-3/11 (Colly) and bill of Rs.2,50,000/- issued by Khandaka Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan is Ex. PW 3/13 (Colly) and the bills in respect of medicines, OPD charges and tests etc., Ex. PW-3/15 (Colly) amounting to Rs. 5,90,602/-. He submitted that the total of said bills / medical expenditure aggregate to Rs.14,86,286/-.
88.The aforesaid medical bills remained unrebutted on record. The discharge summary filed on record clearly show that the injured had taken treatment to said hospitals and had incurred considerable medical expenditure which needs to be compensated. Accordingly, the expenditure on medical treatment is hereby quantified as Rs. 14,86,286/.
v. Expenditure on Conveyance & Special Diet (Pecuniary):
89.Ld. Counsel for injured claimed a sum of Rs.3,00,000 towards Conveyance and Rs.2,00,000/- towards Special Diet. The Insurance company has filed legal offer and considered Rs. 35,000/- (each) under both the heads.
90.Record shows that the injured had suffered 55% of permanent disability of the right lower limb. The discharge summary of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital records that amputation was advised MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 38 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors but thereafter the injured took treatment in the hospital at Jaipur, Rajasthan and his limb was saved. Injured had taken treatment in Delhi as well as in Jaipur, Rajasthan which involves considerable travelling. The doctors also opined that injured will not be able to travel independently in public transport without any assistance. Therefore, there is no doubt that in such serious injuries where limb of the injured was endangered, he must have required a special diet to increase immunity and expedite the healing. However, it is also a matter of record that no bills have been placed by the injured on record to justify the expenditure. Therefore, in these circumstances, the Tribunal has to arrive at the comparison by approximation to balance the interests. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid, the expenditure on conveyance and Special Diet is hereby quantified as Rs. 1,50,000/- (each) i.e. 3,00,000/- in aggregate.
vi. Expenditure on Attendant (Pecuniary):
91.Ld. Counsel for injured contended that as per the testimony of medical witnesses, the services of attendant will be required throughout his life. He submitted that they have claimed minimum wages of attendant for a multiplier period of 17 years. Insurance company has not offered any compensation under this head.
MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 39 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors
92.To appreciate this contention, it would be relevant to refer the law laid down by the Higher Courts in the case titled as Rushi v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2025) 1 SCC 635 held that:
15. However, though the High Court calculated compensation for future medical treatment as Rs 3 lakhs, we are of the opinion that the same would be deficient, given the nature of the permanent disability suffered by the appellant. She would be entitled to Rs 5 lakhs under this head, as claimed by her in her computation statement.
Further, attendant charges would also have to be considered as the appellant would be helpless without assistance. In Kajal [Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413 :
(2020) 3 SCC (Civ) 27 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 577] , this Court opined that the multiplier method would be the most realistic and reasonable method for this purpose. The monthly expense for one attendant was quantified as Rs 5000. Adopting the same, the appellant would be entitled to Rs 9 lakhs under this head.
93. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mukesh Kumar, (2022) 14 SCC 470 held that:
19. We find that in case of extreme injuries affecting the mental and physical abilities of a person, a similar approach has been adopted by this Court in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand [Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413 : (2020) 3 SCC (Civ) 27 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 577] . No doubt the factual matrix in that case painted a very grim picture of young girl who suffered an accident and as a result thereof while physically she would age, her mental state would remain under one year of age. In that scenario, a methodology was suggested to apply the multiplier method while determining the attendant charges. We consider it MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 40 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors useful to reproduce the observations as under : (SCC pp.
424-25, paras 22-25) "Attendant Charges
22. The attendant charges have been awarded [Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, 2018 SCC OnLine P&H 6883] by the High Court @ Rs 2500 per month for 44 years, which works out to Rs 13,20,000. Unfortunately, this system is not a proper system. Multiplier system is used to balance out various factors. When compensation is awarded in lump sum, various factors are taken into consideration. When compensation is paid in lump sum, this Court has always followed the multiplier system. The multiplier system should be followed not only for determining the compensation on account of loss of income but also for determining the attendant charges, etc. This system was recognised by this Court in Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R.M.K. Veluswami [Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R.M.K. Veluswami, 1961 SCC OnLine SC 36 : AIR 1962 SC 1] . The multiplier system factors in the inflation rate, the rate of interest payable on the lump sum award, the longevity of the claimant, and also other issues such as the uncertainties of life. Out of all the various alternative methods, the multiplier method has been recognised as the most realistic and reasonable method. It ensures better justice between the parties and thus results in award of "just compensation"
within the meaning of the Act.
23. It would be apposite at this stage to refer to the observation of Lord Reid in Taylor v. O'Connor [Taylor v. O' Connor, 1971 AC 115 : (1970) 2 WLR 472 (HL)] : (AC p.
128) 'Damages to make good the loss of dependency over a period of years must be awarded as a lump sum and that sum is generally calculated by applying a multiplier to the amount of one year's dependency. That is a perfectly good method in the ordinary case but it conceals the fact that there are two quite separate matters involved--the present value of the MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 41 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors series of future payments, and the discounting of that present value to allow for the fact that for one reason or another the person receiving the damages might never have enjoyed the whole of the benefit of the dependency. It is quite unnecessary in the ordinary case to deal with these matters separately. Judges and counsel have a wealth of experience which is an adequate guide to the selection of the multiplier and any expert evidence is rightly discouraged. But in a case where the facts are special, I think, that these matters must have separate consideration if even rough justice is to be done and expert evidence may be valuable or even almost essential. The special factor in the present case is the incidence of income tax and, it may be, surtax.'
24. This Court has reaffirmed the multiplier method in various cases like MCD v. Subhagwanti [MCD v. Subhagwanti, 1966 SCC OnLine SC 22 : AIR 1966 SC 1750 : 1966 ACJ 57] , U.P. SRTC v. Trilok Chandra [U.P. SRTC v. Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 362] , Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande [Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande, (2017) 3 SCC 351 : (2017) 2 SCC (Civ) 276 : (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 178] . This Court has also recognised that Schedule II of the Act can be used as a guide for the multiplier to be applied in each case. Keeping the claimant's age in mind, the multiplier in this case should be 18 as opposed to 44 taken by the High Court.
25. Having held so, we are clearly of the view that the basic amount taken for determining attendant charges is very much on the lower side. We must remember that this little girl is severely suffering from incontinence, meaning that she does not have control over her bodily functions like passing urine and faeces. As she grows older, she will not be able to handle her periods. She requires an attendant virtually 24 hours a day. She requires an attendant who though may not be medically trained but must be capable of handling a child who is bedridden. She would require an attendant who would ensure that she does not suffer from bedsores. The claimant has placed before us a notification of the State of Haryana of MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 42 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors the year 2010, wherein the wages for skilled labourer is Rs 4846 per month. We, therefore, assess the cost of one attendant at Rs 5000 and she will require two attendants which works out to Rs 10,000 per month, which comes to Rs 1,20,000 per annum, and using the multiplier of 18, it works out to Rs 21,60,000 for attendant charges for her entire life. This takes care of all the pecuniary damages.".
20. The learned counsel for the appellant did seek to persuade us that this is not the only methodology available and it should not be adopted. We are of the view that in cases where the degree of disability is high, there is mental disability, it is a case of a young person, etc. without it being possible to anticipate all possibilities, the course followed aforesaid would be the appropriate course. We are not saying that the aforesaid can be the only course, and in a different scenario, lump sum amount can be assessed as has been as done in Lalan D. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [Lalan D. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 9 SCC 805 : (2021) 1 SCC (Civ) 253 : (2021) 1 SCC (Cri) 238] and Parminder Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [Parminder Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2019) 7 SCC 217 :
(2019) 3 SCC (Civ) 536 : (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 50]
21. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant also sought to point out another course followed in Mallikarjun v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [Mallikarjun v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2014) 14 SCC 396 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 335 : (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 372] , wherein cases of children suffering disability on account of motor vehicle accident, a broad principle was sought to be laid down in the following terms : (SCC p. 400, paras 12-13).
"12. Though it is difficult to have an accurate assessment of the compensation in the case of children suffering disability on account of a motor vehicle accident, having regard to the relevant factors, precedents and the approach of various High Courts, we are of the view that the appropriate compensation on all other heads in addition to the actual expenditure for treatment, attendant, etc. should be, if the disability is above MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 43 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors 10% and up to 30% to the whole body, Rs 3 lakhs; up to 60%, Rs 4 lakhs; up to 90%, Rs 5 lakhs and above 90%, it should be Rs 6 lakhs. For permanent disability up to 10%, it should be Rs 1 lakh, unless there are exceptional circumstances to take different yardstick.
13. In the instant case, the disability is to the tune of 18%. The appellant had a longer period of hospitalisation for about two months causing also inconvenience and loss of earning to the parents."
22. The aforesaid only shows that there is more than one option available i.e. there may be a lump sum amount specified on general principles as enunciated aforesaid; or in cases where the factual scenario requires, same multiplier method can be followed as in Kajal [Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413 : (2020) 3 SCC (Civ) 27 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 577] .
23. Now turning to the facts of the present case, the child was 11 years of age when he suffered functional disability which has been assessed at 70% by the medical board and the tribunal, and which the High Court determined as 100% functional disability. It is in these circumstances that the direction has been passed for attendants with a methodology of assessing the minimum wages payable for two skilled workers. In the given factual scenario, we are of the view that the apposite course to follow is set out in Kajal case [Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413 : (2020) 3 SCC (Civ) 27 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 577] .
94.PW-2 Mr. Mohit Tyagi as well as PW-5 Dr. Sukhvinder Singh Basran in their testimony stated that the injured had suffered disability and will not able to perform his normal chores, they categorically stated that the injured will not able to travel without any assistance. From their testimony it is clear that MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 44 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors injured will require life long services of an attendant to help him in performing day to day activities.
95.The petitioner has claimed minimum wages of attendant as Rs.15,900/-. The minimum wages are not disputed by the Insurance company. The annual cost of attendant will be Rs.15,900 X12 = Rs.1,90,800/-. The applicable multiplier for a person aged 27 years and 01 month is 17. Accordingly, the expenditure towards nursing attendant is quantified as Rs.15,900 X 12 X 17= Rs.32,43,600/-.
vii. Cost of Artificial Limb:
96. No claim is made under this head.
viii. Loss of earning capacity
97. As discussed above the the loss of his earning capacity is assessed as 60%.
ix. Loss of Income (during the period of treatment):
98. The injured has claimed a sum of Rs.2,20,950/- i.e. 10 months salary @ 20,095/- per month. The salary of the injured is proved on record and not in dispute. Admittedly, the accident had taken place on 22.07.2021. As per the testimony of PW-6 Ms. Sonam Singh, the injured was not able to join his duty after accident and was terminated on 28.02.2023. The said period comes to around 19 months. The show cause notices issued to the injured shows that he was not able to join his MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 45 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors service and was remained absent from his duties. The discharge summary issued by Khandaka Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan also showed that injured was discharged on 17.08.2021 and advised rest. In these circumstances from the Medical record as well as the statement of PW-6 Ms. Sonam Singh, it is clear that injured was not able to join his services for a period of more than 10 months. Therefore, the claim of 10 months salary is justified. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 2,20,950/- is awarded for loss of earning during the period of treatment.
x. Any other loss which may require any special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life
99.The injured had placed on record the bills of physiotherapy for sum of Rs.1,43,400/-. The said bills are proved on record by PW-2 Mr. Mohit Tyagi who provided physiotherapy services. PW-2 Mr. Mohit Tyagi as well as PW-5 Dr. Sukhvinder Singh Basran endorsed the fact that the injured will be requiring life long physiotherapy services to give muscle strength and avoid further deterioration. The said bills have remained undisputed. In case of Chaus Taushif Alimiya Vs. Memon Mahmmad 2023 LawSuit (SC) 133 and Jyoti Singh, ICICI Lombard Vs. Nand Kishore 2023 Lawsuit (Del) 1503, the Hon'ble higher courts have also acknowledged the expenditure towards the physiotherapy. In these MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 46 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors circumstances, a sum of Rs. 1,43,400/- is awarded under this head.
xi. Loss of Future Earnings on account of permanent disability (Pecuniary):
100. The injured was 27 years and 01 months on the date of accident. His salary was Rs.20,095/-. The future income is already assessed Rs.10,047/-. Therefore, salary for this purpose was Rs. 30,142/-.
101. It is already observed that the loss of earning capacity in view of the nature of injury and the nature of job of the injured is considered as 60%.
102. The multiplier applicable in the case of injured is 17. Therefore, loss towards future income comes as Rs.30,142 X 12 X 17 X 60% = Rs. 36,89,380/-.
103. Ld. counsel for insurance company submitted that 10 months salary needs to be excluded from the future income as it will lead to duplicacy of compensation. I do not find any merits in the submission made by the Ld. Counsel for Insurance company in this regard. Form -XVI prescribed by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir & Ors. FAO 842/2003 dated 12.05.2021 clearly stipulates the loss of income and loss of future income under two different heads. In case both of them would have been overlapping, the said form should not have considered these heads MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 47 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors separately. Therefore, the contentions of the insurance company in this regard is rejected.
xii. Future Physiotherapy Treatment
104. The petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs.18,000 per month for a multiplier period of 17 years. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for injured /petitioner that the medical witnesses PW-2 Mr. Mohit Tyagi and PW-5 Dr. Sukhvinder Singh Basran have clearly deposed that the petitioner will be requiring life long physiotherapy treatment. He submitted that PW-2 Mr. Mohit Tyagi in his testimony stated that he provided physiotherapy at the fees of Rs. 600/- per session. He submitted that the cost of physiotherapy comes to Rs. 600 X 30 = Rs. 18,000/- per month.
105. The Insurance company has not made any legal offer in this regard. Ld. Counsel for Insurance company submitted that the expenditure of physiotherapy is claimed on higher side and may not be required on daily basis.
106. PW-2 Mohit Tyagi and PW-5 Dr. Sukhvinder Singh Basran in their testimony categorically emphasized about the life long requirement of physiotherapy to maintain the muscle strength and avoid further deterioration of limb. The Hon'ble Higher Courts in the case of Chaus Taushif Alimiya Vs. Memon Mahmmad (Supra) and Jyoti Singh, ICICI Lombard Vs. Nand Kishore (Supra) have also acknowledged the compensation towards the physiotherapy treatment.
MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 48 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors
107. I find merits in the submissions made by Ld. Counsel for the Insurance Company that the expenses incurred on physiotherapy is on higher side and may not be incurred on daily basis. Therefore, in order to balance the interest of parties, the cost of physiotherapy is provided @Rs.500/- per visit/ session for 15 days in a month i.e. Rs.7,500/- per month. The yearly costs will of 7,500 X 12 = 90,000/-. The multiplier applicable is 17. Therefore, compensation under this head comes to Rs.90,000 X 17 = Rs. 15,30,000/-.
108. Thus, the total amount awarded under Pecuniary compensation is:
Sr. No. Heads Amount
1. Expenditure on treatment 14,86,286/-
2. Expenditure on Conveyance 1,50,000/-
3. Expenditure on Special Diet 1,50,000/-
Loss of income during 2,00,950/-
treatment
4. Expenditure on Attendant 32,43,600/-
5. Cost of Artificial Limb NIL
6. Loss of earning during 60%
period of treatment
MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 49 of 65
Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors
7. 1,43,400/-
Any other loss which may
require any special
treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his
life i.e. physiotherapy
treatment.
8. 36,89,380/-
Loss of Future Income &
loss of income
9. 15,30,000/-
Future Physiotherapy
Treatment expenses
Rs. 1,05,93,616/-
TOTAL
Non-Pecuniary Heads
Xiii. Compensation for Mental & Physical shock, Pain & Suffering and Loss of amenities (Non-Pecuniary):
109. 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 MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 50 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors 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.
110. The petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-
towards mental and psychological shock; Rs. 3,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, and Rs. 3,00,000/- towards loss of amenities.
111. The Insurance company has offered a sum of Rs.
25,000/- towards mental and physical shocks, Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.10,000 towards loss of amenities of life.
112. The injured has suffered grievous injuries and 55% permanent disability in right lower limb due to which he is not able to stand, walk or perform his day to day chores without any assistance.
113. Hence, keeping in view the extent and nature of the injuries suffered by the claimant and duration of the treatment taken by him etc., an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each is being awarded to him towards (i) Pain and suffering, and
(ii) Loss of amenities respectively. Further, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- is also awarded to him for the mental and physical shock undergone by him. Thus, compensation for Mental & Physical shock, Pain & Suffering and Loss of MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 51 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors amenities is hereby quantified as Rs.3,00,000/- under this head.
xiv. Loss of Marriage Prospects (Non-Pecuniary):
114. No claim is made out under this head.
xv. Disfiguration (Non-Pecuniary):
115. A sum of Rs.3,00,000/- is claimed under this head.
Insurance company has not offered anything under this head. As per medical record the injured has suffered 55% permanent disability in right lower limb and not in a position to perform day to day chores. The photographs clearly show that the limb got disfigured due to injuries. Accordingly, keeping in view of the whole facts and circumstances a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is granted under this head.
xvi. Loss of earnings, inconvenience, hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress and unhappiness in future life etc. (Non- Pecuniary):
116. A sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- is claimed under this head.
The Insurance company has not offered any compensation under this head. Injured is already granted sufficient compensation for loss of earning. Keeping in view of the overall facts and circumstances, the claim is quantified as Rs.50,000/- under this head.
MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 52 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors
117. Thus, the total amount awarded under Non- Pecuniary compensation is:
Sr. No Heads Amount
1. Compensation for Mental 1,00,000/-
& Physical shock
2. Pain & Suffering 1,00,000/-
3. Loss of amenities of life 1,00,000/-
4. Disfiguration 1,00,000/-
5. Loss of Marriage Prospects -NIL-
6. Loss of earnings, 50,000/-
inconvenience, hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress and unhappiness in future life etc TOTAL Rs.4,50,000/-
(a) Issue No.3: Relief. i. Amount of Award:
118. Thus, the total amount of award, after adding Pecuniary damages (Rs.1,05,93,616/-) and Non Pecuniary damages(Rs.4,50,000/-) amounts to Rs.1,10,43,616/-.
119. Thus, the claimant is awarded as sum of Rs.1,10,43,616/- 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.
MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 53 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors ii. Rate of Interest:
120. 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.
121. 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"
122. 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 claim petition is 22.07.2021 therefore the amount of Interest is calculated at @ 9 % from the date of filing of petition (for 53 MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 54 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors months) i.e. Rs.43,89,837/. Thus, the total amount of award is Rs. 1,54,33,453/-.
123. 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:
124. 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 MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 55 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors interest upto the date of notice of deposit to the claimant(s) with a copy to their counsel.
125. Release: In the present matter, out of awarded amount, a sum of Rs.14,33,453/- is directed to be released to the injured Mr. Deepak Bainad immediately in his bank account through electronic mode and remaining award amount is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in the Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in the form of 120 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for a period of 1 to 120 months in succession.
126. The Nodal officer of the bank shall ensure disbursement of the award within 3 weeks of receipt thereof by email or otherwise.
127. 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.
iv. Disbursement of the award amount & protection thereof:
128. The amount of award shall be disbursed through the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD)Scheme formulated vide order dated 01.05.2018 passed in Rajesh Tyagi(supra). 21 banks, including UCO Bank, is implementing the MACAD scheme.
MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 56 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors
129. Further, to protect the award amount, the entire amount of compensation is not being released forthwith to the claimant, and part of the compensation amount has been directed to be kept in fixed deposits in a phased manner. Further, the following conditions are hereby reiterated and being imposed upon the concerned bank with respect to the fixed deposits:
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint names to be added in the savings bank account or MACAD scheme account of claimant i.e. the bank account of claimant shall be individual account and not a joint account.
(b) The original fixed deposits shall be retained by the UCO Bank, PHC, New Delhi in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR numbers, amounts, dates of maturity and maturity amounts shall be furnished by the said bank to the claimant and the above amount shall be released in account of claimant by the Manager, UCO Bank, PHC, ND through RTGS/NEFT/or any other electronic mode.
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of his residence.
(d) The maturity amount of the FDR(s) on monthly basis net of TDS be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the above account of the claimant.
MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 57 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the MACAD 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 card(s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) 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(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause above.
LIABILITY
130. Respondent no. 1 to Respondent no. 3 are jointly and severely liable to pay compensation. The factum of insurance MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 58 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors is not disputed. No breach of policy condition / statutory defence is proved. Accordingly, insurance company is duty bound to pay the compensation and indemnify the insured. Respondent no.3 being insurer of offending vehicle, 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. 3 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. 3 with a cost of Rs.5,000/-.
131. The respondent no. 3 shall inform the petitioner and his counsel that the awarded amount has been deposited so as to facilitate him to collect the same.
MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 59 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES
132. 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 : 22.07.2021
2. Name of the injured : Mr. Deepak Bainad
3. Age of the injured : 27 Years 01 month
4. Occupation of the injured : Permanent Job.
5. Income of the injured : Rs 20,095/-
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by : Yes the injured
8. Period of hospitalization : As per record
9. Whether any permanent : Yes. 55% Permanent disability.
disability?
10. Computation of Compensation Sr.No. Heads
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment : Rs.14,86,286/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance : Rs 1,50,000 /-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet : Rs.1,50,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant : Rs.32,43,600/-
MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 60 of 65
Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors
(v) Cost of artificial limb -NIL-
(vi) Loss of earning capacity : 60%
(vii) Loss of Income (10 months) : Rs.2,00,950/-
(viii) Any other loss which may Rs.1,43,400/-
require any special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life.
12. Non-pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental : Rs. 1,00,000/-
and physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering : Rs. 1,00,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life :
Rs. 1,00,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration : Rs. 1,00,000/-
(v) Loss of marriage prospects : -NIL-
(vi) Loss of earning, : Rs.50,000/-
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 : 55%
assessed and nature of
disability as permanent or
temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of :
expectation of life span on
account of disability.
(iii) Percentage of loss of : 60%
earning relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income & : Rs.36,89,380/- .
earning capacity (Rs.30,142
MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 61 of 65
Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors
X 12 X 17 X 60%
14. Total Compensation Rs.1,10,43,616/-
15. Interest Awarded :
16. Interest amount up to the : Rs. 43,89,837/-
date of award (53 Months)
17. Total amount including : Rs.1,54,33,453/-.
interest
18. Award amount released : Rs.14,33,453/-
19. Award amount kept in the : The remaining awarded amount be FDRs/ Motor Accident invested and deposited in 120 Claims Annuity Deposit monthly fixed deposits receipts (FDR) (MACAD) of equal amounts for a period of 120 months as per Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposits Schemes.
20. Mode of disbursement of : ECS the award amount to the petitioner (s)
21. Next date for compliance : 28.05.2026 of the award COMPLIANCE QUA PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME
133. 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:
MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 62 of 65
Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors
1. Date of the accident 22.07.2020
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
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 N.A. 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?
MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 63 of 65
Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors
13. Date of response of the NA
petitioner(s) of the offer of the
Insurance Company.
14. Date of the Award 24.04.2026
15. Whether the petitioner(s) were Yes.
directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which petitioner(s) 24.11.2021 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?
MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 64 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors
134. 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.
135. File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary formalities. Separate file be prepared for compliance report and be put up on 28.05.2026.
Digitally signed by Abhilash Abhilash Malhotra Malhotra Date:
2026.04.25 Announced in the open court 15:34:09 +0530 on 24.04.2026 (Dr.Abhilash Malhotra) Judge/PO, MACT-02, New Delhi/ 24.04.2026 DLND010082782021 ...sds MACT No. 182/2021 Page. 65 of 65 Deepak Bainad Vs Harkesh & Ors