Delhi District Court
Purshottam vs Arvind Kumar Singh on 16 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF GUNJAN GUPTA, DISTRICT JUDGE-
CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-01, (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI
AWARD/JUDGMENT
MACT Case No. 1327/2022
CNR No.DLWT010105392022
Purshottam
S/o Sh. Moti Lal
R/o House No. D-159, Gali no.10,
Harphool Vihar, Bapraula, New Delhi
...Petitioner
Versus
1. Arvind Kumar Singh (Driver)
R/o H. No. RZJ-27/233, Gali no.63, West Sagar Pur,
New Delhi
2. Nine Packaging Pvt. Ltd. (Owner)
A-113, G.F. Block, C, Mayapuri,
also at H. No. L134, 1st Floor, D. K. Mohan Garden,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi
3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Pvt. Ltd.(Insurer)
1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New
Delhi-110070.
Date of Institution : 02.11.2022
Date of pronouncement : 16.02.2026
FORM-XVII
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE
1. Date of the accident 05.01.2022
Purshottam vs. Arvind Kumar Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.1327/2022] Page No.1 of 38
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.19
17:42:53 +0530
2. Date of filing of Form-I - 02.11.2022
First Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II 02.11.2022
to the victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III 02.11.2022
from the Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV 02.11.2022
from the Owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- 02.11.2022
Interim Accident Report
(IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA 02.11.2022
and Form-VIB from the
Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - 02.11.2022
Detailed Accident Report
(DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay Accident took place on
or deficiency on the part of 05.01.2022 and the DAR
the Investigating Officer? If was filed only on
so, whether any action/ 02.11.2022
direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the --
Designated Officer by the
Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated No
Officer of the Insurance
Company submitted his report
within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay --
or deficiency on the part of
the Designated Officer of the
Insurance Company? If so,
whether any action/direction
warranted?
13. Date of response of the Legal offer not filed in the
claimant(s) to the offer of the present case
Insurance Company
Purshottam vs. Arvind Kumar Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.1327/2022] Page No.2 of 38
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.19
17:42:56 +0530
14. Date of the award 16.02.2026
15. Whether the claimant(s) Yes
was/were directed to open
savings bank account(s) near
their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which 02.11.2022
claimant(s) was/were directed
to open savings bank
account(s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN
Card and Aadhaar Card and
the direction to the bank not
issue any cheque book/debit
card to the claimant(s) and
make an endorsement to this
effect on the passbook.
17. Date on which the claimant(s) 20.01.2026
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 House No. D-159, Gali
Address of the claimant(s). no.10,
Harphool Vihar, Bapraula,
New Delhi
19. Whether the claimant(s) Yes
savings bank account(s) is/are
near his/her/their place of
residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) Yes
was/were examined at the
time of passing of the award
to ascertain his/her/their
financial condition?
AWARD
Purshottam vs. Arvind Kumar Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.1327/2022] Page No.3 of 38
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.19
17:42:58 +0530
BRIEF BACKGROUND
1.1 The present matter arises out- of a DAR which was
filed on 02.11.2022 by Investigating Officer (IO) in the presence
of the parties.
1.2 This DAR pertains to road vehicular accident dated
05.01.2022 which occurred at about 10:30 AM at Junk Market
Red Light, Maya Puri, New Delhi falling within the jurisdiction
of PS Maya Puri in which Sh. Purshottam S/o Moti Lal
(hereinafter referred as "petitioner") sustained grievous injuries.
FIR No. 326/2022 under Section 279/337 IPC was registered at
PS Maya Puri.
1.3 Subsequently, a claim petition u/s 166 & 140 MV
Act, 1988 was filed by the petitioner which was directed to be
treated as main petition vide order dated 03.12.2022 passed by
Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal.
BRIEF FACTS :
Brief Facts of the case as set out in the petition are:-
1.4 On 05.01.2022, petitioner was going to work at Junk
Market, Maya Puri on his bicycle. At about 10:30 AM, when he
reached Red Light, Junk Market, Maya Puri, and was crossing
the road on foot with his cycle during the duration of red light
signal, he was hit from behind by the offending vehicle which
came at high speed, in rash and negligent manner also jumping
the red light. Consequently, the petitioner sustained injuries. He
was admitted in DDU Hospital where his MLC was prepared.
However, at the said hospital, the MLC and X-ray machine was
not working and the petitioner came back to his house but felt
pain the whole night and, therefore, visited Orthozone Clinic at 7,
Purshottam vs. Arvind Kumar Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.1327/2022] Page No.4 of 38
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.19
17:43:01 +0530
8, Jai Bharat Enclave, Dwarka More, Near Metro Station, Delhi
where he was treated by Dr. Kultar Singh. FIR No.326/2022 was
registered on 02.08.2022 U/s 279/337 IPC. The petitioner had
sent complaint to concerned police station through speed post
and even the police is stated to have visited the hospital on same
day of incident i.e. 05.01.2022. In the final report annexed with
the DAR, respondent no.1 was charged with the offences U/s
279/337 of IPC.
1.5 DAR mentions the respondent no.01 as driver, the
respondent no.02 as owner and respondent no.03 as the insurer of
offending vehicle.
REPLY OF RESPONDENT NO.01 & 02.
2.1 Respondent no.01 & 02 filed the reply inter alia
stating that the petition is false, concocted, misconceived and
based on incorrect and hypothetical facts. It is stated that there is
delay of around 290 days in registration of FIR which raises
suspicion on the truthfulness of contents of the FIR. The
petitioner has concealed the material facts from this Tribunal.
Accident took place due to negligence of the petitioner who tried
to overtake the vehicle of the respondent no.1 at red light signal.
Due to rash hour timing i.e. 10:30 AM and it being an industrial
area, there was heavy traffic on road and petitioner himself lost
balance of his bicycle and fell on road and sustained simple
injuries. The petitioner started falsely accusing respondent no.1.
Respondent no.1 stepped out of his vehicle and helped the
petitioner and also remained present with his family at the
workplace of petitioner until the petitioner returned from
hospital. After petitioner returned from hospital, the petitioner
Purshottam vs. Arvind Kumar Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.1327/2022] Page No.5 of 38
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.19
17:43:03 +0530
admitted his fault and gave a written letter to SHO PS Maya Puri
that the accident occurred due to negligence on his part and
respondent no.1 is innocent and he does not wish to file any
formal complaint against him and he also undertakes that he will
not file any complaint in future. As per MLC, injury is simple
but petitioner has falsely stated that he received grievous injury.
The respondent no.1 possessed all relevant documents pertaining
to vehicle. The respondent no.1 was driving the vehicle obeying
all traffic rules & regulations. With these averments, the
respondent no.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the DAR.
REPLY OF RESPONDENT NO.03
2.2 Respondent no.03 filed its written statement wherein
it admitted that the offending vehicle bearing registration no.
DL10CQ2941 was duly insured with it vide policy No.
3001/0/am1-11236288/00/000 valid from 27.07.2021 to
26.07.2024. There is delay of around 7 months in registration of
the FIR and no reason for the same has been given by the
petitioner. It is further stated that in the statement dated
02.08.2022 of the petitioner, the case has already been settled by
the petitioner with owner of the offending vehicle. With these
averments, the respondent no.3 has prayed for dismissal of the
DAR.
ISSUES
3. Vide order dated 28.03.2023, the following issues
were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal:-.
1. Whether the injured Purshottam
sustained injuries in the accident that took
place on 05.01.2022 at abbout 10:30 am at
Red Light of Junk Market, Maya Puri,
Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of
Purshottam vs. Arvind Kumar Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.1327/2022] Page No.6 of 38
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.19
17:43:05 +0530
offending vehicle (Car S-presso) bearing
registration number DL10CQ2941 by
respondent no.01, being owned by the
respondent no.2 and insured with the
respondent no.3? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner(s) is/are entitled
to compensation, if yes, of what amount
and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
4.1 The petitioner examined himself as PW-1 to
establish his claim. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit
Ex.PW1/A. In his evidence, he relied upon DAR as
Ex.PW1/1(colly) and medical bills as Ex.PW1/2(colly) in his
evidence. He was examined, cross-examined and discharged.
4.2 The petitioner also examined Sh. Gangaram,
employer of petitioner as PW-2. He deposed that he had
employed the injured Purshottam at his workshop and he used to
do welding work at his workshop. He further deposed that
Purshottam had been working at his workshop since six years
prior to the incident and after the incident, he stopped working as
he is not able to do the said work now. He further deposed that
Purshottam used to be paid as per work done on each day. He
further deposed that Purshottam used to be paid in between
Rs.800/- to Rs.1200/- in cash per day and used to earn around
Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per month. He was examined, cross-
examined and discharged.
4.3 The petitioner also examined Dr. Kultar Singh
Malhotra, MBBS, MS Orthopedics, Orthozone Clinic, Dwarka
Purshottam vs. Arvind Kumar Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.1327/2022] Page No.7 of 38
Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.19
17:43:07 +0530
Mor as PW-3. PW3 deposed that the patient Purshottam visited
his clinic for first time on 10.01.2022 with complaint of severe
back pain and inability to walk and had brought MRI report
along with him. He deposed that as per MRI report, the patient
was suffering from wedge collapse fracture of L1 & L2 vertebra
along with diffuse disc bulge of L4, L5 and was treated with
taylor brace along with facetal block and nerve root block
injections and medication. He further deposed that the injuries
with which the patient was diagnosed are possible in road traffic
accident. He further deposed that the patient initially remained
under his continuous treatment for six months and, thereafter, he
came back for further treatment after a gap of around 01 year and
then again for further future treatment after another gap of 01
year. He has exhibited the treatment records of the petitioner as
Ex.PW3/1 (Colly). PW-3 has also exhibited the bill of recent
MRI of the patient done on his telephonic advice as Ex. PW3/2.
4.4 PW-3 further deposed that the patient is not able to
sit upon his feet for long time because of coccydynia due to
coccyx fracture which mean fracture of tail bone.
4.5 Answering the Tribunal question qua the possible
difficulties to be faced by the petitioner in his day to day working
as a labourer, PW3 stated that the patient would face pain in tail
bone if he remains in seated position for more than half an hour
and would face difficulty in lifting weights, bending forward etc.
due to lumber fracture.
4.6 Answering the further Tribunal question qua the
possibility of diffuse disc bulge of L4 & L5, being previous
condition, PW-3 stated that it could be a previous condition,
Purshottam vs. Arvind Kumar Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.1327/2022] Page No.8 of 38
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.19
17:43:10 +0530
however, there is a possibility of the disc bulge getting worse
after RTA thereby compressing the nerve root as the patient's
pain was radiating down the leg after RTA.
4.7 In the cross-examination, PW-3 deposed that the
collapse of the fracture of L1 and L2 vertibra alongwith diffuse
disc bulge of L4 L5 was diagnosed in the MRI initially presented
to him by the patient and even the subsequent diagnosis done on
his advise. On being shown the MLC of the petitioner, he
deposed that the nature of the injuries mentioned as simple in the
MLC of the petitioner is a wrong opinion as the patient had
suffered a fracture also. He further deposed that the injuries
which were noted in MRI presented to him by patient on his first
visit on 10.01.2022 were fresh in nature as mero adima in L1 &
L2 vertibra was there which would have been possible only if the
injuries have been sustained recently. He denied the suggestion
that the injuries which were diagnosed in the MRI presented to
him for the first time were not related to RTA and were old in
nature.
RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE
5.1. No evidence was led by respondent no.1 & 2 and
RE on behalf of respondent no.1 & 2 was closed on the request
of the counsel on 28.07.2025.
5.2 Respondent no.3/Insurance Company examined Sh.
Amit Kumar Sharma, Senior Forensic Expert as R3W1 who
tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.R3W1/A. In his
evidence, he relied upon copy of certificate of incorporation as
Mark A, copy of company ID card as Ex.R3W1/2(OSR),
authority letter issued by the company as Ex.R3W1/3 and motor
Purshottam vs. Arvind Kumar Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.1327/2022] Page No.9 of 38
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.19
17:43:11 +0530
accident reconstruction report as Ex.R3W1/4 in his evidence. In
his cross-examination, the witness deposed that he did not check
the bicycle of the petitioner and the offending vehicle (Car). He
deposed that he had visited the spot of the accident, however, the
date of visit has not been mentioned in his report Ex.R3W1/4. He
further deposed that he had also not contacted the doctor of the
DDU Hospital as well as Orthozone Clinic, Dwarka More, Delhi
where the MLC of the petitioner was prepared and where the
petitioner took further treatment. He deposed that he had not
enquired the employer of the petitioner regarding the accident.
He denied the suggestion that he had filed a false and fabricated
report after a gap of three years from the date of accident,
without contacting the petitioner and visiting the place of
accident.
ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
6. It was argued by Ld. Counsel for petitioner that the
delay in the registration of the FIR is explained by the charge
sheet itself which mentions about the settlement between the
parties and further by the complaint which was filed by the
petitioner with the concerned SHO and on which no action was
taken. He argued that the petitioner due to his condition could not
get the FIR registered in time. The counsel further argued that the
petitioner has positively proved that the incident took place due
to rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.01, the
expenses of the medical treatment of the injured and that the
injured was doing the welding work with Ganga Ram at Junk
Market, Mayapuri, Delhi and used to earn Rs.1500/- per day. It
was argued that the evidence of R3W1 cannot be relied upon as
Purshottam vs. Arvind Kumar Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.1327/2022] Page No.10 of 38
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.19
17:43:14 +0530
the said report has been prepared without visiting the place of
accident and the said witness/ expert even did not examine the
vehicles involved in the accident before preparing his report and
also did not examine the employer. He submitted that keeping in
view the above, the award may be passed by this Tribunal as per
entitlement/claim of petitioner.
ARGUMENTS OF Ld. COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT
NO.1 &2
7. It was submitted by Ld. Counsel for respondent no.1
& 2 that the appropriate orders may be passed as per record,
however, the delay in registration of FIR and the factum of
discharge of the injured on same day of accident may be
considered.
ARGUMENTS OF Ld. COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT
NO.3
8. It was argued by Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3
that the accident took place due to negligence of the petitioner
who while overtaking the offending vehicle at the red light, lost
control over his bicycle and fell down on road and sustained
injuries. It was argued that the fault of the petitioner has been
admitted by him in his complaint/ letter to the SHO. The counsel
further argued that from the evidence of R3W1 and the opinion
given by him in his report, it is clear that in fact the accident in
question did not happen with the insured vehicle. He submitted
that the petitioner has sustained simple injury in the accident and
the treatment record is not related to the injuries sustained in the
accident. It was further argued that there is no mention about the
employment status of the injured in the DAR and, therefore, if an
Purshottam vs. Arvind Kumar Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.1327/2022] Page No.11 of 38
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.19
17:43:16 +0530
award is passed in favour of the petitioner, his income may be
considered as Rs. 8,000/- per month as mentioned in the DAR
itself.
ANALYSIS/FINDINGS ON ISSUES
Issue No.(1) Whether the injured Purshottam
sustained injuries in the accident that took
place on 05.01.2022 at abbout 10:30 am at
Red Light of Junk Market, Maya Puri, Delhi
due to rash and negligent driving of
offending vehicle (Car S-presso) bearing
registration number DL10CQ2941 by
respondent no.01, being owned by the
respondent no.2 and insured with the
respondent no.3? OPP.
9.1 Before adverting to the facts of the present petition
for deciding the above issue, at the very outset, it would be
apposite to note here that strict rules of evidence are not
applicable in an inquiry conducted by Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal. The standard of proof is not as strict as in criminal
cases and evidence is to be tested on the touchstone of
preponderance of probabilities only. In fact, the burden of proof
in a claim petition under the M.V. Act, is even lesser than a civil
case. Reference in this regard can be made to the proposition of
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of
"Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport
Corporation and Ors." (2009) 13 SC 530, "Parmeshwari Vs.
Amir Chand and Ors." 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal
No.1082 of 2011) and "Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd. & Ors.", 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 etc.
9.2 Keeping in mind the aforesaid legal preposition, this
Tribunal has gone through the testimony of the witnesses and
Purshottam vs. Arvind Kumar Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.1327/2022] Page No.12 of 38
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.19 17:43:18
+0530
entire material available on record. This Tribunal has also given
its thoughtful consideration to arguments addressed by Ld.
Counsels for the parties.
9.3 The petitioner has deposed in his examination-in-
chief that on 05.01.2022, he was crossing the red light at Junk
Market, Mayapuri on foot alongwith his bicycle during the time
when the signal was red and was hit by the offending vehicle
bearing No. DL10CQ2941 (S-Presso Car) from behind. He fell
down on the road. He was taken to DDU Hospital, New Delhi by
his colleague where the concerned doctor prepared his MLC but
he was discharged on the same day after prescribing some
medicines as the X-ray machine and other machine were not
working. He further deposed that he felt pain in his waist the
whole night and, therefore, on the next day i.e. 06.01.2022, he
consulted Dr. Kultar Singh at Orthozone Clinic, Dwarka Mor,
Delhi where fractures in his waist was diagnosed. He deposed
that the incident happened solely due to rash and negligent
driving of respondent no.01. The petitioner in his evidence has
relied upon DAR as Ex.PW1/1(colly) and medical bills as
Ex.PW1/2(colly).
9.4 In the cross-examination, merely suggestion was
given to the witness regarding the manner of accident. The
testimony of the witness regarding the occurrence of the
accident, the date and time of the accident and the involvement
of the offending vehicle remained unrebutted during his cross-
examination. The documents relied upon by the witness also
remained unrebutted and uncontroverted.
9.5 In the DAR filed by the Investigating Officer, the
Purshottam vs. Arvind Kumar Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.1327/2022] Page No.13 of 38
Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.19
17:43:20 +0530
notice U/s 133 of M.V. Act issued to respondent no. 2 has been
annexed. A perusal of the same shows that respondent no. 2 in its
reply to the same has admitted that on the date of accident, the
offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no. 1 and he
had caused the said accident. As per the statement of Sh. Raunaq
Kumar Singh (authorized representative of respondent no. 2 as
per the said statement) recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC, the
said Raunaq Singh had produced the driver of the offending
vehicle as well as the offending vehicle, the RC and insurance
documents etc. which were seized on the same day vide seizure
memo prepared in this regard. As per the seizure memo dt.
02.08.2022 of the driving license of the driver/respondent no.1,
the driving license of respondent no.1 was seized by the IO on
production of the same by respondent no.1. As per the seizure
memo dt. 22.08.2022, the respondent no. 1 had also produced the
offending vehicle and had admitted that he had caused the
accident in question.
9.6 As per the GD No. 0047A filed alongwith the DAR,
the information regarding the accident of the petitioner was
received at PS Maya Puri. As per the GD entry, an information
was received from ASI Jogender, PCR DDU Hospital that the
petitioner has been brought to DDU Hospital by his friend
Mohan and his MLC NO. 91/22 has been prepared.
9.7 In the charge-sheet filed by the IO, respondent no.1
has been chargesheet for the offences under Section 279/337 IPC.
9.8 Thus, the DAR filed by the IO and the documents
filed alongwith the DAR i.e. copies of the FIR, charge-sheet,
MLC, seizure memos, statement recorded U/s 161 CrPC &
Purshottam vs. Arvind Kumar Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.1327/2022] Page No.14 of 38
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.19 17:43:22
+0530
medical treatment record also corroborate the testimony of PW-1.
9.9 Further, the very fact that respondent no.1 was
charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Section
279/337 IPC with respect to the accident in question/FIR
No.326/2022 is in itself a strong circumstance to support the
testimony of PW-1 and sufficiently proves the complicity of
respondent no.1 in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly.
9.10 Even otherwise, respondent no.01/driver was the
best witness who could have rebutted the case of rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle put forth by petitioner
and could have thrown some light as to how and under what
circumstances, the accident in question took place. However,
respondent no.01/driver has chosen not to step into the witness
box during the course of inquiry. In the given circumstances,
adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him, to the effect
that the accident occurred due to his rash and negligent driving.
9.11 Further, during his cross-examination, the petitioner
was confronted with a copy of the letter dt. 05.01.2022 addressed
to SHO, PS Mayapuri whereupon the witness stated that the
signature on the same may be his own, however, he is not sure
about it. Thus, the petitioner did not deny his signatures on the
same. In the cross-examination of PW1, a suggestion was put to
him regarding a help of Rs. 10,000/- being provided by
respondent no. 1. The said suggestion was denied. As per the
charge-sheet filed by the police, it was stated by the respondent
no. 1 himself that a settlement was entered into between him and
the petitioner. Thus, it appears that the said letter was written by
the petitioner in view of some settlement happening between the
Purshottam vs. Arvind Kumar Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.1327/2022] Page No.15 of 38
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.19
17:43:25 +0530
parties, which though remained unproved during the inquiry.
9.12 It is also pertinent to mention here that the
respondent no.1 & 2 have not denied their presence at the spot of
the incident and have in fact stated that the petitioner received
injuries while overtaking the offending vehicle. As per the GD
entry No. 0099A filed alongwith with the DAR, the respondent
no. 1 was arrested and has been released on bail. There is
nothing on record to suggest that the respondent no. 1 has filed
any complaint with any authority regarding his false implication
in the FIR No.326/2022 registered on 02.08.2022 U/s 279/337
IPC. Further, there is no reason why respondent no. 1 waited at
the petitioner's workplace, awaiting his arrival from the hospital,
as alleged in his WS. Also, there is no reason why respondent
no. 1 would pay Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner if he was at no
fault as alleged.
9.13 Further, it has been clearly stated by the petitioner
in his petition U/s 166 of M.V. Act as well as in his affidavit in
evidence that the signal at the time of accident was red and the
said fact has neither been denied by the respondents in their reply
and even the cross-examination of the witness is silent on this
aspect. Thus, it stands admitted that the respondent no. 1 had
violated the traffic rules by moving his vehicle even when the
signal was red.
9.14 It was argued by the counsel for respondent no. 3
that from the evidence of R3W1 who is the Senior Forensic
Expert, it is clear that in fact the accident in question did not
happen with the insured vehicle. However, the evidence of R3W1
as well as the expert report Ex.R3W1/4 cannot be relied upon as
Purshottam vs. Arvind Kumar Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.1327/2022] Page No.16 of 38
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.19 17:43:27
+0530
it has been stated by R3W1 in his examination-in-chief that the
scientific evaluation has been done on the basis of the
documents, statements, visit, photographs, damage found on the
vehicle, technical analysis etc. However, it has been admitted in
the cross-examination by R3W1 that he did not examine the
vehicles involved in the accident. The date of visit to the spot of
accident has also not been mentioned. In fact, in the report
Ex.R3W1/4, only the google photographs have been placed,
which creates a doubt regarding the visit to the place of incident
by the expert. There is no mention as to whose statements have
been evaluated as stated in the examination in chief. Further, as
per para no. 6 of the affidavit of evidence Ex.R3W1/A, the
opinion has been formed only on the basis of MLC, ignoring the
other medical record of the petitioner. The basis of the opinion in
the said para that the accident is not corelating to have been
caused by the concerned Maruti S-presso also seems to be devoid
of common logic. Further, the basis of the opinion stated is that
the injured has not sustained injuries like abrasion, laceration or
fracture and has not suffered any external injuries on head and
body and has sustained only internal injuries. It has been further
stated that in such a scenario, the cyclist is likely to fall backward
over the bonnet and windshield of the car causing damage to the
front portion etc. of the vehicle which were not present on the
offending vehicle. In the considered opinion of this Tribunal, the
same is neither a logical nor a sound reasoning. It is not
necessary that in every case of a hit by a vehicle, a person would
always fall back on the bonnet etc. and would definitely suffer
external injuries. The injuries and the position of falling of a
Purshottam vs. Arvind Kumar Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.1327/2022] Page No.17 of 38
Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.19
17:43:32 +0530
victim of an accident would depend upon many factors like the
speed with which the offending vehicle was moving, the impact
of the collision etc. Further, the only medical document i.e. the
MLC that is stated to have been analysed by the witness also
seems to have been not properly examined. There is a clear
mention in the MLC regarding tenderness on the lower back,
abrasion etc. which has also been noted in the report prepared by
the witness. In the MLC, X-rays have been recommended and the
petitioner has also been referred to an Ortho/Surgeon. The
witness has totally ignored the mentions of the above injuries
while giving his opinion in the report, though under the heading
"scientific analysis of a rear end collision of a bicycle by car"
under the sub-head "types of injuries", the possibility of internal
injuries and laceration and abrasion has been discussed. Further,
under the heading "injury co-relation", again there is no mention
of the available medical record of the petitioner qua the fractures
suffered by him. It is also pertinent to mention that the opinion of
the witness in his report is contrary to the evidence on record
regarding the involvement of the offending vehicle in the
accident in question, which has already been discussed in detail
above. Thus, Ex.R3W1/4 and the evidence of R3W1 does not
help the case of the respondent no. 3 and cannot be relied upon.
9.15 Thus, from the above discussion and the material
available on record, the involvement of the offending vehicle in
the accident in question, the rashness and negligence of the
respondent no. 1 in driving the offending vehicle as well as the
causation of injuries to the respondent no. 1 on account of the
accident stands proved on the scale of preponderance of
Purshottam vs. Arvind Kumar Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.1327/2022] Page No.18 of 38
Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.19
17:43:35 +0530
probabilities.
9.16 As regards, the delay in registration of the FIR, the
same cannot be considered as fatal to the case of the petitioner as
the information was received at the concerned police station on
the date of the accident itself, however, the FIR was registered by
the police only upon a formal complaint by the petitioner.
9.17 It is pertinent to mention here that though in the
cross-examination of PW1, a suggestion has been given that an
amount of Rs. 10,000/- was provided by respondent no. 1 to the
petitioner, the same has been denied. The respondents have not
led any evidence to prove the same and in fact there is no
pleading to this effect.
9.18 It has been stated by the petitioner in the petition
itself that the petitioner was crossing the road at Red Light, Junk
Market, Mayapuri when the signal was red. The same has been
stated in the affidavit of evidence of petitioner Ex.PW1/A as
well. The same constituted a violation of the traffic rules and
was an extremely dangerous act on the part of the petitioner
especially considering that the road where the accident happened
was a road where the movement of the traffic was from all the
four sides as shown in the site plan. If the signal would have been
red for one direction, it would be green for vehicles coming from
some other direction. Thus, clearly, the petitioner has contributed
to the accident. In view of the circumstances and in the
considered opinion of this Tribunal, 25% contributory
negligence is attributed to the petitioner.
9.19 In view of the above discussion and considering the
evidence on record, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the
Purshottam vs. Arvind Kumar Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.1327/2022] Page No.19 of 38
Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUNJAN GUPTA GUPTA
Date: 2026.02.19 17:43:39 +0530
claimant has on the scale of preponderance of probabilities
proved that the petitioner sustained injuries in road accident on
05.01.2022 which occurred at about 10:30 AM at Junk Market
Red Light, Maya Puri, New Delhi due to rash and negligent
driving of offending vehicle bearing registration number
DL10CQ2841 being driven by respondent no.1. Issue no.01 is
decided accordingly.
ISSUE No. (ii)
Whether the petitioner(s) is/are entitled to
compensation, if yes, of what amount and from
whom? OPP
10.1 In view of the findings on issue no.1, the petitioner
is entitled to get compensation for the injuries suffered by him
and the loss suffered by him due to the injuries in the road
accident. However, before proceeding further to ascertain the
quantum of compensation, it has to be decided whether the
injuries suffered by the petitioner are simple or grievous in
nature.
10.2 It was argued by the counsel for respondents that the
injuries of the petitioner were simple injuries and the injured was
discharged on the same day of the accident. It was argued that the
treatment record filed by the petitioner is not related to the
injuries sustained in the accident. A perusal of the MLC of the
petitioner prepared at DDU Hospital, New Delhi shows that the
petitioner was having tenderness over his lower back and was
referred to "Ortho/Surgeon". Some X-rays were also
recommended. The nature of injury was opined to be simple in
the said MLC, stated to be 'As per X-ray No.76 dated
05.01.2022'. The same was signed by the CMO as well as a
Purshottam vs. Arvind Kumar Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.1327/2022] Page No.20 of 38
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.19
17:43:41 +0530
Junior Resident Doctor. In the prescription of Dr. Mata Prasad
Upadhyay, SR Surgery, DDU, "grossly (n) expert opinion
availed" has been mentioned. The said words are seen written
against X-ray chest and abdomen. The petitioner has been
advised to avoid lifting weights in this prescription. In the
medical documents prepared at DDU Hospital, the complaint of
back pain has been mentioned. In the MLC X-ray form though it
has been mentioned that no obvious bone injuries is visualized,
however, it has also been noted that the patient was incooperative
and only the possible views have been done. Thus, clearly the
patient was not completely examined for possible injuries and
also it appears that Dr. Mata Prasad was not agreeable with the
opinion of the expert qua the x-ray. As per the prescription dt.
06.01.2022 ( on the very next day of the accident) prepared at RR
Hospital, Jai Vihar, Phase-III, New Delhi, the petitioner was
advised "MRI LS Spine". The history of RTA case seen by DDU
Hospital, has been mentioned in the said prescription. As per the
MRI report dt. 10.01.2022, there was evidence of fracture with
wedging of L2 vertebral body. The entire medical treatment
records placed on record by the petitioner relates to the treatment
of Spine problem. There is a continuity in the treatment.
10.3 Further, the evidence of PW3 is material in this
regard. PW3 has deposed that the petitioner visited him on
10.01.2022 with complaint of severe back pain and inability to
walk. He deposed that he had also presented a MRI report as per
which the petitioner had a wedge collapse fracture of L1 & L2
vertebra along with diffuse disc bulge of L4, L5. He further
deposed that the injuries diagnosed were possible in a road traffic
Purshottam vs. Arvind Kumar Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.1327/2022] Page No.21 of 38
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.19
17:43:44 +0530
accident. It has been clearly stated by PW3 in his evidence that a
wrong opinion has been given in the MLC as the patient had
suffered fracture also. The witness has clearly deposed that the
fracture was diagnosed in the initial MRI presented to him and
even in his subsequent diagnosis done on his advise. PW3 has
also deposed in his cross-examination that the injuries that were
noted in the MRI presented to him on 10.01.2022 were fresh in
nature as mero adima in L1 & L2 vertibra was there which would
have been possible only if the injuries have been sustained
recently. The responding to a Tribunal question regarding the
possibility of the diffuse disc bulge being a previous condition,
the witness deposed that it could be a previous condition,
however, there is a possibility that the same got worse after RTA
as the pain was radiating down the leg. Thus, as per the testimony
of PW3, the opinion in the MLC was wrong and the petitioner
had suffered a grievous injury. The testimony of PW3 in this
regard is also corroborated by the prescription of Dr. Mata Prasad
Upadhyay, SR Surgery, DDU Hospital wherein it is noted that
"grossly (n) expert opinion availed". Further, a perusal of the
medical record of the petitioner would clearly show that the
petitioner had been complaining of back pain and was reported to
have tenderness in back and was also referred to the
Ortho/Surgeon. The opinion in the MLC is based only on X-ray
No. 76 which as per the X-ray form gives only the possible views
due to incooperation of the petitioner. The petitioner has on a
very next day of the accident visited the RR Hospital, Jai Vihar,
Pase-III, Delhi with the complaint of severe back pain and was
advised MRI. As already discussed in the MRI dt. 10.01.2022,
Purshottam vs. Arvind Kumar Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.1327/2022] Page No.22 of 38
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.19 17:43:47
+0530
the fracture has been noted and thereafter the petitioner has taken
treatment for the same. Thus, a continuous chain of events has
been established by the petitioner qua his injuries sustained in the
accident and the treatment taken. There is nothing on record to
suggest any intervening circumstances evidencing fresh injuries
to the petitioner. It is also pertinent to mention here that even
though the PW3 has deposed that the diffuse disc bulge could be
a previous condition, however, there is no evidence to suggest
that the patient had already suffered a fracture prior to the
accident. Even otherwise, PW3 has clearly deposed that there is a
possibility of disc bulge getting worse after the RTA. Thus, even
if the medical condition of a person gets worsened after the
accident, he is entitled to be compensated for the same. As
already discussed above, PW3 has also clearly deposed that the
injury suffered by the petitioner were fresh injuries. The
testimony of PW3 has remained unrebutted. The witness has
been consistent in his testimony and the same inspires
confidence.
10.4 From the above discussion, it is clear that the
petitioner had suffered grievous injury in the form of wedge
collapse fracture of L1 & L2 vertebra.
10.5 Before proceeding further to decide the present
issue, it would be apposite to encapsulate the law laid down by
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its. Judgment in "Raj
Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors." (2011) 1 SCC 343. It was held:
-
"General principles relating to compensation in injury cases
4. The provision of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('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 Purshottam vs. Arvind Kumar Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.1327/2022] Page No.23 of 38 GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2026.02.19 17:43:49 +0530 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 tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376, R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467).
5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following :
Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising :
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. Assessment of pecuniary damages under item (i) and under item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses - item (iii) -- depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages - items (iv), (v) and (vi) -- involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decision of this Court and High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability - item (ii)(a). We are concerned with that assessment in this case. Assessment of future loss of Purshottam vs. Arvind Kumar Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.1327/2022] Page No.24 of 38
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.19
17:43:52 +0530
earnings due to permanent disability.
10.6 In view of the above law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in routine injury cases, award needs to be passed only under heads of medical expenses, loss of earning during treatment period and damages for pain, suffering and trauma. In cases of serious injuries, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the claim/evidence of the claimant, award additionally needs to be passed under the heads of loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability suffered, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (including loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. In light of the above settled law, the amount of compensation to which the petitioner is entitled is determined as under:
MEDICAL EXPENSES 10.7(i) The petitioner has stated in his evidence that he has suffered grievous injuries due to the accident and has incurred an expenses of Rs.1,50,000/- on medical treatment. The petitioner has relied upon DAR as Ex.PW1/1(colly) and medical bills as Ex.PW1/2(colly). Total amount of medical bills come to Rs.1,08,799/-.
10.7(ii) Hence, injured/petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,08,799/- on account of medical bills/expenses. Accordingly, petitioner is awarded Rs.1,08,799/- on account of medical expenses.
ASSESSMENT OF EXPENSES TOWARDS FUTURE TREATMENT 10.8 Petitioner has not claimed any amount required for future treatment. Petitioner has also not filed any Purshottam vs. Arvind Kumar Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.1327/2022] Page No.25 of 38
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.19 17:43:55
+0530
document/medical evidence on record to show that petitioner requires any future treatment, hence, petitioner is not entitled for any amount under this head.
DETERMINATION OF LOSS OF INCOME DURING TREATMENT PERIOD 10.9(i) The petitioner has claimed that he was doing the work of Welding with Ganga Ram at Junk Market, Mayapuri, Delhi and used to earn Rs.1500/- per day. The petitioner has examined Sh. Ganga Ram as PW2 to prove his employment and income. The said witness has clearly deposed that the petitioner was employed with him at his Workshop of repair of accident vehicles for last 6 years. He has also provided the address of his workshop in his evidence. He has deposed that the petitioner used to be paid as per the work done by him on each day. He further deposed that he was paid between Rs. 800/- to Rs. 1200/- in cash and used to earn Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. Nothing favourable to the respondents came on record in the cross-examination of the witness.
10.9(ii) It has been stated by the petitioner in his petition as well as affidavit of evidence that the petitioner was going to his duty at the time of the accident which happened at Junk Market, Maya Puri. The petition clearly mentions the name of the employer as Ganga Ram and the address as Junk Market, Maya Puri, Delhi. The DAR also mentions the occupation of the injured as "Private Job Denting Painting". There were no averments in the reply filed by the respondent no.1 & 2 that the petitioner is not employed as alleged. In fact, it is averred in the reply filed by respondent no. 1 & 2 that the respondent no. 1 waited for the Purshottam vs. Arvind Kumar Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.1327/2022] Page No.26 of 38 GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2026.02.19 17:43:57 +0530 petitioner to return from hospital, at the workplace of the petitioner. No evidence has been brought on record to prove that Sh. Ganga Ram was not running his shop at the stated address or was not the employer of the petitioner.
10.9(iii) Thus, from the material available on record, it is clear that the petitioner was working at the workshop of repair of accident vehicles of PW2.
10.9(iv) As regards the income of the petitioner, the PW2 has deposed that the petitioner used to be paid Rs. 800/- to Rs. 1200/- per day and used to earn Rs. 25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per month. He has also deposed that he had employed three people at his workshop including the petitioner. In his cross-examination, the witness has deposed that he himself he used to earn Rs. 2,000/- to Rs.3,000/- per day and the employees were paid according to the work received by him on a given day and the work done by an employee on a given day. Thus, clearly the petitioner did not have any fixed income and his income used to vary according to the work which PW2 would get on a given day. Even otherwise, it is unlikely that a person earning between Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 3,000/- per day would be able to pay Rs. 800/- to Rs. 1200/- per day to one employee out of the three employees employed by him and would be also able to incur expenses of running his business i.e. raw material etc. and at the same time, would save profits for his own survival. Thus, the evidence of PW2 with respect to the income of the petitioner cannot be relied upon. In these circumstances, the income of the petitioner shall be calculated as per the minimum wages payable to a Skilled worker. The same would be fair, just and reasonable.
[MACT No.1327/2022] Page No.27 of 38
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.19 17:44:01
+0530
10.9(v) As per the Aadhar Card of the petitioner on record,
it appears that the petitioner was a resident of Delhi. Hence, the income of injured/petitioner has to be assessed on the basis of chart of Minimum Wages of a Skilled person in the State of NCT of Delhi. The minimum wages for a Skilled person of State of NCT of Delhi on the date of accident i.e. 05.01.2022 were Rs.19,473/-
10.9(vi) Accordingly, the monthly income of the injured needs to be considered as Rs.19,473/- per month on the date of accident.
10.9(vii) The nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner has already been discussed in the foregoing part of this award. It has been deposed by PW2 that after the accident the petitioner had stopped working as he was not able to do the said work. A perusal of the medical record of the petitioner shows that the petitioner has remained under continuous treatment for almost a year. Considering the nature of the injuries, the period of treatment, the nature of his employment and the evidence of PW2 and PW3, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner would not have been able to work for at least a period of 12 months. Accordingly, this tribunal grants compensation of sum of Rs.2,33,676/- (Rs.19,473/- x 12) towards loss of income during treatment period.
10.9(viii) It has been stated by the petitioner in his examination-in-chief that he is not able to restart his job because he cannot sit or stand properly due to his waist disability. The witness has not been cross examined in this regard and merely a suggestion has been given that the petitioner was not earning Purshottam vs. Arvind Kumar Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.1327/2022] Page No.28 of 38
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.19
17:44:09 +0530
anything at the time of the incident and has not suffered any loss of income,. The said suggestion has been denied by the petitioner. However, there is no medical disability assessment certificate on record.
10.9(ix) PW 3 has deposed that the patient is not able to sit upon his feet for long time because of fracture of tailbone and he would face pain in the tailbone if he remains in seated position for more than half an hour and further would also face difficulty in lifting weights, bending forward etc. due to lumber fracture. The testimony of the said witness in this regard has remained unrebutted. Though in the absence of any further evidence, it cannot be opined whether the petitioner has suffered any permanent or temporary disability yet it cannot be completely ignored that the petitioner being a labourer would definitely face difficulty in finding suitable jobs for himself for earning his livelihood with his present condition. His future prospects would also be affected to some extent. Not only this since it has been proved on record that the petitioner would face difficulties in sitting, lifting weights, bending forward etc., there is also loss of amenities of life.
10.9(x) It would be apposite to refer to para no.4 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. (supra). Para no.4 is reproduced hereunder:-
"4. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('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 tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively Purshottam vs. Arvind Kumar Singh & Ors. [MACT No.1327/2022] Page No.29 ofDigitally 38 signed GUNJAN by GUNJAN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2026.02.19 17:44:13 +0530 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. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376, R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467)."
emphasis supplied.
10.9(xi) In view of the same, a notional sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- is awarded to the petitioner.
PAIN & SUFFERINGS 10.10 Pain & suffering is a non pecuniary loss and cannot be arithmetically calculated. It is a settled law that while assessing compensation payable to petitioners on account of pain & suffering, special circumstances of claimant have to be taken into account including victim's age, the nature of injuries, the unusual deprivation suffered by victim and effect thereof on his future life. The nature of injuries and the period of treatment of the petitioner has already been discussed above. Clearly, the petitioner must have suffered acute pain & suffering during the treatment and recovery. In view of the same and considering the nature of the injury, the period of treatment, the recovery time required in cases of fracture and the suffering and the trauma undergone by him, the petitioner is held entitled for a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner.
[MACT No.1327/2022] Page No.30 of 38
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.19 17:44:16
+0530
SPECIAL DIET
10.11 The nature of injuries and treatment undergone by
the injured has already been discussed in the foregoing part of the judgment. Thus, considering the same and further considering that the petitioner must have required a long time to recover from the injuries and must have required a high protein rich diet, this Tribunal deems it fit to grant compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- towards expenses incurred on special diet. ATTENDANT CHARGES 10.12 Considering the nature of injuries suffered by petitioner which have already been discussed in the foregoing part of the award, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner must have required the assistance of some attendant during the period of recovery, may be that of his family members. It is a settled law that for grant of compensation for attendant charges, the necessity of employment of the attendant is not required and the petitioner is required to be compensated even for value of services of his family members. (refer: DTC & Ors. vs. Lalita, 1983 ACJ 253). Accordingly, this Tribunal deems it appropriate to grant compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- towards attendant charges. CONVEYANCE CHARGES 10.13 Though there is no evidence on record of the expenses incurred by the petitioner upon conveyance, yet considering the nature of injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner and the period of treatment undergone, this Tribunal grants compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards expenses incurred on conveyance.
THE TOTAL COMPENSATION AWARDED TO THE PETITIONER IS AS UNDER:-
Purshottam vs. Arvind Kumar Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.1327/2022] Page No.31 of 38
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.19 17:44:18
+0530
S.No. Heads of Compensation Amount in Rupees
1. Reimbursement of medical Rs.1,08,799/-
expenses
2. Compensation on account of NIL
future treatment
3. Loss of Income during Rs.2,33,676/-
treatment period
4. Notional Sum Rs.3,00,000/-
5. Pain and Suffering Rs.2,00,000/-
6. Special Diet Rs.1,20,000/-
7. Attendant charges Rs.1,20,000/-
8. Conveyance Rs.1,00,000/-
Total Rs.11,82,475/-
11. In view of the above discussions, the petitioner is held entitled to recover a compensation amount of Rs.8,86,857/-
(Rupees Eight Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Seven Only) [after deducting 25% on account of contributory negligence of the injured] [(Rs. 11,82,475- Rs.2,95,618/- (25%)] from the respondents. RELIEF:-
12. In view of the above discussion and findings on issues, this Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.8,86,857/-
(Rupees Eight Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Seven Only) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. 02.11.2022 till the date of the payment of the award amount to be paid by the respondent No.3/Insurance Company. Respondent no.3/Insurance Company is hereby directed to deposit the award amount in favour of the petitioner(s) with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in MACT Account of this Tribunal having Account No.40711767202, CIF No.90891362578, IFSC Code - SBIN0000726, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi within a period of 30 Purshottam vs. Arvind Kumar Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.1327/2022] Page No.32 of 38
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.19
17:44:20 +0530
days from the date of passing of this award together with the interest as stated herein above under intimation to this Tribunal and under intimation to the petitioner. In case of any delay, it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
DISBURSEMENT OF AWARD AMOUNT 13.1(i) Statement of the petitioner in terms of provisions of MCTAP was recorded on 20.01.2026. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the said statement, it is hereby ordered that out of the award amount, a sum of Rs.2,86,857/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Seven Only) shall be immediately released to the petitioner through his saving bank account and remaining amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Only) along with interest on the entire award amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs (fixed deposit receipts) in the multiples of Rs.20,000/- each for a period of one month, two months and three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest. 13.1(ii) The amount of FDRs on maturity shall directly be released in petitioner's Saving Bank Account. 13.1(iii) All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following conditions:-
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the MACT bank account of the claimant (s) near the place of their residence.
(d) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
Purshottam vs. Arvind Kumar Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.1327/2022] Page No.33 of 38 GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2026.02.19 17:44:23 +0530
(e) 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.
(f) 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.
(g) 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 (g) above.
14. Concerned Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts Branch is directed to transfer the award amount, in the above-mentioned manner, as per award in the saving bank account of claimant/petitioner, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
15. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph, specimen signature, copy of bank passbook and copy of residence proof of the petitioner, be sent to Nodal Officer of State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance.
16. Nazir of this Court shall prepare a separate file regarding the status of deposition/non-deposition of the award amount by the respondent no.3 after making necessary entry on CIS on 27.03.2026.
17. A digital copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost through email.
18. Ahlmad staff is directed to send the copy of award to Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class concerned and Delhi Legal Purshottam vs. Arvind Kumar Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.1327/2022] Page No.34 of 38 GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2026.02.19 17:44:26 +0530 Services Authority as per the procedure of Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure (MCTAD).
19. Ahlmad staff is also directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurer as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors." decided on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall also e-email an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court Complex Branch for information.
20. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court on 16th of February, 2026 (GUNJAN GUPTA) District Judge-cum-PO:MACT-01, West/THC/Delhi/16.02.2026 Purshottam vs. Arvind Kumar Singh & Ors.
[MACT No.1327/2022] Page No.35 of 38
Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUNJAN GUPTA GUPTA
Date: 2026.02.19 17:44:30 +0530
FORM-XVI
SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE
1. Date of accident : 05.01.2020
2. Name of the injured : Purshottam
3. Age of the injured : DOB: 16.01.1971
4. Occupation of the injured: Welding work
5. Income of the injured : Rs.19,473/- per month (As per minimum wages of skilled worker)
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken : Around 01 year
8. Period of Hospitalization : None
9. Whether any permanent disability ? : No If yes, give details :
10. Computation of Compensation S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss :-
(I) Expenditure on Rs.1,08,799/-
treatment
(ii) Expenditure on Rs.1,00,000/-
conveyance
(iii) Expenditure on special Rs.1,20,000/-
diet
(iv) Cost of Rs.1,20,000/-
nursing/attendant
(v) Loss of earning capacity NIL
(vi) Loss of Income Rs.2,33,676/-
(loss of earning during
treatment period)
(vii) Any other loss which Rs.3,00,000/- (Notional
may require any special Sum)
treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his
life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss :-
(i) Compensation for NIL
mental and physical
shock
[MACT No.1327/2022] Page No.36 of 38
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.19 17:44:40
+0530
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.2,00,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life NA
(iv) Dis-figuration NA
(v) Loss of marriage NA
prospects
(vi) Loss of earning, NA
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 NIL
assessed and nature of
disability as permanent
or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or NA
loss of expectation of
life span on account of
disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of NIL
earning capacity in
relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - NIL
(Income x% Earning
Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL Rs.8,86,857/- (Rupees
COMPENSATION Eight Lakhs Eighty Six
Thousand Eight Hundred
and Fifty Seven Only)
[after deducting 25% on
account of contributory
negligence of the injured]
[(Rs. 11,82,475-
Rs.2,95,618/- (25%)]
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9% per annum
16. Interest amount up to Rs.2,62,509/-
the date of award (w.e.f. 02.11.2022 to
16.02.2026 i.e.3 years 3
months and 14 days)
[MACT No.1327/2022] Page No.37 of 38
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.19
17:44:42 +0530
17. TOTAL AMOUNT Rs.11,49,366/-
INCLUDING (Rs.8,86,857/- +
INTEREST Rs.2,62,509/-)
18. Award amount released Rs.2,86,857/-
19. Award amount kept in Rs.6,00,000/- + interest
FDRs accrued
20. Mode of disbursement Mentioned in the award
of the award amount to
the claimant (s).
21. Next date for 27.03.2026
compliance of the
award.
(GUNJAN GUPTA)
District Judge-cum-PO:MACT-01,
West/THC/Delhi/16.02.2026
[MACT No.1327/2022] Page No.38 of 38
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.19 17:44:44
+0530