Delhi District Court
Mohd. Adil vs Prakash on 14 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHELLY ARORA
DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
PO MACT (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No.: 845/2018
FIR no. 402/2018
PS Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh
U/s 279/338 IPC
CNR No.: DLSE01 007145-2018
Mohd. Adil Vs. Prakash & Ors.
Mohd. Adil
S/o Athar Hussain
R/o H. No. T-103A, Ground Floor,
Sarai Kale Khan, New Delhi.
.....Claimant
Versus
1. Prakash
S/o Sh. Ram Singh
R/o H. No. 137, Village
Akka Pandey Bhojpur,
PS Munda Pandey, Moradabad-244001.
.....R-1/ Driver
2. Rajiv Sangar
S/o Sh. Dharam Pal Sangar
R/o H. N O. 19, Shiv Vatika
Modi Towane Mal, Vijay Nagar
Jaitpur, Rajasthan.
.....R-2/ Owner
MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 1 of 54
3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
F-14, Bombay Life Building,
Connaught Place, New Delhi.
....R-3/ Insurance Co.
Date of accident : 05.04.2018
Date of filing of petition : 31.08.2018
Date of Decision : 14.07.2025
AWARD
1. Claim Petition:
1(a) This is a claim petition filed under Section 166 and 140
M.V. Act on 31.08.2018 by Mohd. Adil (hereinafter called the
claimant/ injured) on account of injuries suffered by him in a
Road Traffic Accident (RTA) with vehicle (Tanker) bearing Reg.
No. RJ 14GE 2340 (hereinafter referred as offending vehicle),
driven by Sh. Prakash (hereinafter called R-1/ driver), owned by
Sh. Rajeev Sangar (hereinafter called R-2/ Owner), & insured
with M/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter
referred as R-3/ Insurance Company).
2. Brief Facts:
2(a) On 05.04.2018 at around 11:00 PM, driver Mohd. Adil
along with pillion riders Mohd. Arif and Mohd. Javed were going
to his house located at Sarai Kale Khan from Noida on a
motorcycle bearing registration number DL-11SK-4322 at
normal speed and on correct side of the road which was impacted
by a milk tanker bearing registration No. RJ 14GE 2340, being
driven speedily and rashly, without blowing any horn and without
any lookout, as a result of which motorcycle toppled and all of
MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 2 of 54
them sustained serious injuries. Injured Mohd. Arif was rushed to
Fortis Hospital, where he remained hospitalized for a day and his
MLC was also prepared. Thereafter, he remained admitted in
Lok Nayak Hospital for about 14 days where leg above knee was
amputated as part of the treatment. FIR was registered under
relevant provision of law. Investigations were undertaken.
Statement of witnesses were recorded. Mechanical Inspection of
the accidental vehicles was got done. Driver of the milk tanker
was charge sheeted for injuring the bikers on account of speedy
and rash driving on a public way.
2(b) It is stated that the claimant was earning livelihood as AC
Mechanic, drawing salary of Rs.18,500/- per month, however,
disability has rendered him incapacitated to work as AC
Mechanic. It is stated that R-1 was driving the offending milk
tanker at the time of accident, which was owned and managed
by R-2 and insured with R-3/ Insurance Company. It is
accordingly asserted that all the three respondents are responsible
for compensating the victim against serious injuries sustained in
the accident. An amount of Rs. 40 lakhs has been sought as
compensation along with interest @ 12% per annum.
3. Reply:
3(a) In Written Statement filed on behalf of R-1 & 2, it is stated
that the bikers themselves were tripling and were negligently
driving which caused the accident. The averments in the petition
were denied. It is submitted that R-1 plied the tanker at a normal
speed and was observant of the applicable traffic rules.
3(b) In Written Statement filed on behalf of insurance company,
it is stated that the bike driver carried more than one pillion rider
MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 3 of 54
in violation of Sec. 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act which
constitutes contributory negligence to the tune of 30% on the part
of bike driver as well on the basis of judgment rendered in the
case of Manish Narayan Vs. Seema Bouri and Ors 2009
ACJ-2271 (Jharkhand). It is also asserted that the motorcycle
became disbalanced on account of tripling and not because of any
negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle. The
validity and effectiveness of the insurance policy was conceded.
Other general defences were taken. Validity of the documents
pertaining to the offending vehicle as well as the driving license
of R-1 was also questioned.
4. Issues:
4(a) From the pleadings of parties, following issues were
framed vide order dated 22.07.2019:
i) Whether the petitioner suffered injuries in a road traffic accident on
05.04.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no.
RJ 14GE 2340, being driven by R-1, owned by R-2 and insured with
R-3? OPP.
ii). Whether the injured is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what
extent and from whom?OPP
iii). Relief.
5. Disability Assessment:
5(a) Disability Assessment Certificate was received as per
which injured was diagnosed with 19% permanent physical
impairment in relation to both lower limbs.
6. Evidence:
6(a) Matter was then listed for Petitioner's Evidence. PW-1
Mohd. Adil tendered his evidentiary affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He
relied upon following documents:
Ex.PW1/1- Medical treatment records
MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 4 of 54
Ex.PW1/2- Medical bills amounting to Rs. 47,000/-
Ex.PW1/3- Disability certificate
Ex.PW1/4- Appointment letter issued from employer.
Ex.PW1/5- Copies of educational certificate
Ex.PW1/6- Copy of DL
Ex.PW1/7- Copy of PAN Card
Ex.PW1/8-Copy of Aadhar Card
6(b) PW-1 was further cross examined by counsel for Insurance
Company as well as counsel for R-1 & 2.
6(c). No other evidence was led by claimant. Petitioner
Evidence was accordingly closed. Matter was then listed for
Respondent Evidence.
6(d). R1W1 Sh. Prakash tendered his evidentiary affidavit as
Ex.R1W1/A in connected case bearing MACT no.844/2018. He
relied upon photocopy of Driving License as Ex.R1W1/1 and
certified copy of Insurance Policy already Ex.R3W1/1. He was
cross examined by counsel for claimant.
6(e). R2W1 Sh. Rajiv Sangar tendered his evidentiary affidavit
as Ex.R2W1/A in connected case bearing MACT no.844/2018.
He was also cross examined by counsel for claimant.
6(f). Insurance Company examined R3W1 Ms. Lalita Anand,
Administrative Officer, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd in
connected case bearing MACT no.844/2018. She tendered her
evidentiary affidavit as Ex.R3W1/A and replied upon copy of
Insurance Policy as Ex.R3W1/1, permit as Ex.R3W1/2, report of
MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 5 of 54
Regional Transport Authority as Ex.R3W1/3, notice under Order
XII Rule 8 CPC as Ex.R3W1/4 and Postal receipts as
Ex.R3W1/5.
6(g). Respondent Evidence was closed. Matter was then listed
for Final Arguments.
7. Arguments:
7(a) Final Arguments were advanced by the contesting
counsels.
7(b) Counsel for the claimant argued that the injured is in a
serious medical condition having suffered 20% permanent
disability in both lower limbs. He submitted that due to the said
disability, the petitioner experiences considerable difficulty in
performing daily routine activities and faces physical limitations
in standing, walking, or working for extended durations.
Therefore, his earning capacity has been adversely affected.
Counsel for the petitioner further argued that though the
disability is partial, the petitioner still requires assistance from
family members in day-to-day life. It is also stated that the
petitioner continues to suffer from pain, discomfort and
psychological distress due to the injury. It is prayed that the
functional disability in relation to whole body must be assessed
keeping in view the impact of the injuries on his day to day life.
It is accordingly prayed that the claim petition filed by the
claimants must be allowed and compensation as per legally
applicable provisions be awarded in favour of the claimants.
7(c). Written Submissions were filed by counsel for R-1 & R-2.
It is stated that the bike got disbalanced on account of tripling as
two pillion riders were riding on the motorcycle at the time of
MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 6 of 54
accident. It is contended that the offending vehicle was not
involved in the accident at all. It is also stated that R-1 was
driving the vehicle at a normal speed as per applicable traffic
rules. It is stated that R-1 had a valid driving license at the time
of accident and offending vehicle was duly insured with the R-3.
It is pointed out that only two injured persons out of three filed
the claim petition which puts the entire projected case in doubt. It
is stated that there is no clause in the insurance policy which
entitles R-3/ Insurance Company to avoid liability on the basis of
expiry of permit before the date of accident. It is submitted that
R-2, being owner of the offending vehicle had applied for
issuance of permit on 02.04.2018 which was renewed on
06.04.2018 which would not be construed as invalid on the date
of accident in issuance of the same also as the validity of permit
is presumed from the date of expiry of the permit and not from
the date of issuance and thus insurance company cannot deny the
claim on the ground that the offending vehicle was being run
without permit. Counsel for R-1 & 2 has relied on Section 81 (5)
of the Motor Vehicles Act and submitted that very purpose of
obtaining the permit was to carry the goods, however, there were
no goods loaded in the vehicle at the time of accident and
therefore, insurance company cannot take advantage of the
intervening period of renewal of permit. It is pointed out that
Respondent has got the permit renewed from time to time,
however, provision of Sec. 81(5) MV Act provides that renewal
of permit should be read from the date of expiry. It is pointed out
that the fee of Rs. 16,500/- was already paid for renewal of
permit for a period of one year. It is also pointed out that the said
fee is for the duration starting from 02.04.2018 till 02.04.2019. It
MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 7 of 54
is also pointed out that the clearance of documents and
processing of permit does consume period of 3-4 days and thus
R-2 cannot be faulted for being without permit during the
intervening period. It is stated that R-2 has fulfilled the obligation
as required. It is asserted that even though fee of Rs. 16,500/-
was deposited on 06.04.2018,however, the amount deposited has
to be considered for entire one year period and thus, validity of
permit should be counted / read from 02.04.2018 to 02.04.2019.
It is stated that R-2 has always applied for and obtained the
permit within stipulated time frame. R-1 & 2 has prayed that the
entire liability of paying compensation is upon R-3/ Insurance
Company as the validity of the insurance policy has been duly
admitted. They relied upon the Judgment in case of National
Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Ram Pher & Anr First Appeal from
Order no. 349/2002.
7(d) Written Submissions on behalf of R-3/ Insurance Company
was also filed wherein validity of the insurance policy has been
conceded. Counsel for insurance company also conceded that the
petitioner is entitled for minimum wages as applicable in the
Delhi as on the date of accident. It is further submitted that
contributory negligence to the tune of 30% must be deducted as
more than 2 pillion riders were being carried on the motorcycle
in violation of the Sec. 128 of Motor Vehicles Act which had put
the safety of driver as well as the pillion rider in peril. It is also
asserted that the offending vehicle had no permit as on the date of
accident as per the report of RTO, Jagatpura, Jaipur and thus
insurance company is entitled to recovery rights against the
owner. Counsel for insurance company placed reliance upon the
judgment in the case of, Dr. Narasimulu Nandini Memorial Vs.
MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 8 of 54
Banu Begum, First Appeal No.202022/2016 and Manish
Narayan Vs. Seema Bouri & Ors. 2009 ACJ -2271 (Jharkhand).
8. Discussion:
8(a). On the basis of material on record, evidence adduced and
arguments addressed, issue wise findings are as under :
Issue No.1
Whether the petitioner suffered injuries in a road traffic accident on
05.04.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no.
RJ 14GE 2340, being driven by R-1, owned by R-2 and insured with
R-3? OPP.
8(b). PW-1 / injured affirmed that on 05.04.2018 at about 11
PM, while he was driving motorcycle bearing Reg. No. DL 11SK
4322 with Mohd Arif and Mohd. Javed as pillion rider at a
normal speed on correct side of the road that the motorcycle was
impacted by speedily and rashly driven milk tanker bearing Reg.
No. RJ 14GE 2340 near Rahul Vihar Mod with great force, on
account of which the motorcycle toppled and all of them fell
down on the road. During cross examination by counsel for R-1
& R-2, he stated that the motorcycle was being plied at speed of
about 20-30 kmph. He also specified that he as well as other two
pillion riders of the motorcycle were wearing the helmets. He
declined the suggestion that the accident took place on account of
his own negligence. He also declined the suggestion that he was
under the influence of intoxication at the time of accident.
Similar deposition in respect of specifics and the manner of the
accident has also been made by Mohd. Arif in the connected
claim petition.
8(c). R-1 / driver of the offending vehicle testified that there
MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 9 of 54
were two pillion riders seated on the motorcycle because of
which it lost balance and caused accident. He also asserted that
the accident resulted only on account of negligent driving by
motorcyclist. He asserted that he was driving the milk tanker at a
normal speed at the time of accident. During cross examination
by counsel for claimant, he admitted that he was behind wheels
on offending vehicle at the time of accident and the FIR under
relevant legal provisions was lodged against him. He admitted
that he never filed any complaint alleging false implication in the
present matter.
8(d) R2W1 Rajeev Sehgal also appeared in the witness box and
admitted that he was not the eye witness of the case, however,
that Prakash was driving the vehicle at the time of accident who
was arrested in this case. He also admitted that he never filed any
complaint with the police officials in respect of wrongful
identification or involvement of the offending vehicle.
8(e) FIR was registered next day post accident wherein the
registration number and make of the offending vehicle were duly
specified. R-1 has admitted that the accident took place with the
offending vehicle and that he was behind wheels at the time of
accident.
8(f) About mode and manner of the accident, R-1 deposed that
he was driving the milk tanker at normal speed on correct side of
the road whereas the tripling bikers were negligent and lost
balance. He also deposed that the bike had rather hit the milk
tanker twice and not vice versa. The affirmation on the face of it
that the bike had hit the milk tanker twice because of which they
fell down and sustained injuries do not inspire confidence.
Considering the point of collision reflected in site plan, above
MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 10 of 54
affirmation cannot be satisfactorily or clarified. This affirmation
was not even put to the injured during cross examination by
counsel for R-1 & R-2, for him to explain the factual
circumstances of the accident. The affirmation by R-1 rather
appears to be nothing more than a failed attempt to discredit the
deposition of injured about mode and manner of the accident.
PW-1 has categorically stated that the milk tanker was being
driven very speedily and rashly, thereby forcefully impacted the
bike driven ahead on the road. The nature of injuries sustained by
the two victims and Mechanical Inspection Report specially that
of accidental vehicle also corroborate with the deposition made
by PW-1. Site plan filed as part of charge sheet also reflect upon
the specification of accident and is explanatory of nature and
extent of damages sustained by motorcycle also falsifies the
contentions on the part of respondents that bike had disbalanced
on account of tripling and not because it was impacted by
offending vehicle. No impact of collision has been recorded for
offending vehicle however considering that it is a heavy vehicle
having collided with motorcycle, do not raise any doubt about the
factum of accident.
8(g) It is evident that the forceful impact of the milk tanker had
disbalanced the bike leading to serious injuries to its riders.
8(h). R-1 has been charge sheeted for causing injury to victim
due to speedy and rash driving of the offending vehicle. It is
settled that filing of charge sheet itself is a significant step
towards the inference of negligence on the part of driver of the
offending vehicle. (Support drawn from the Judgment in the case
of National Insurance Company Vs. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287
Delhi as referred and relied by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 11 of 54
in case of Ranjeet & Anr. Vs. Abdul Kayam Neb & Anr SLP (C)
No. 10351/2019).
8(i) It is a well-established legal principle that negligence in
motor accident cases should be determined based on the
preponderance of probabilities, not on proof beyond reasonable
doubt. The facts and circumstances must be considered in a broad
and practical manner. It is also settled that proceedings under the
Motor Vehicles Act are different from regular civil suits and are
not strictly governed by the technical rules of the Indian
Evidence Act. This view has been supported in the judgments of
Bimla Devi & Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation &
Ors., (2009) 13 SCC 530; Kaushnumma Begum & Ors. v. New
India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2001 ACJ 421 (SC); and National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa Rana, 2009 ACJ 287.
8(j) It is evident that the motorcycle was knocked by speeding
milk tanker which itself reflects reckless driving on the part of
driver of the milk tanker. It is thus held that R-1 as driver of the
offending vehicle caused the accident due to speedy and rash
driving of the said offending vehicle. Issue No.1 is decided in
favour of claimant and against the respondents.
9. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
9(a) Counsel for R-1 & 2 as well as Counsel for Insurance
Company have argued that the accident occurred due to
negligence of riders of motorcycle as they were tripling on the
said motorcycle which might have caused imbalance due to
which it toppled thereby injuring the riders. There is no evidence
to suggest that the vehicle was not knocked by the milk tanker or
that it lost balance on its own because of triple riding. There is
also no evidence that the motorbike would not have toppled
MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 12 of 54
despite collision, had there not been any triple riding. It is settled
that the negligence can be attributed upon victim only if there is
some evidence that the victim could have acted to avert the
accident. Therefore, any act on the part of victim must have a
causal connection with the happening of the accident. As stated
above, the accident happened on account of speeding Milk
Tanker having impacted the motorcycle and not due to triple
riding having disbalanced the motorbike and therefore, the
contention of attributing contributory negligence on the part of
victim/ riders of the motorcycle has no basis and thus rejected.
(Support drawn from the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Mohammed Siddique vs National
Insurance Company Ltd AIR 2020 Supreme Court 520, wherein
similar fact in issue were deliberated upon).
ISSUE NO. 2
"Whether the injured is entitled to any
compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?
OPP"
"The determination of quantum must be liberal, not
niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free
country in generous scales"
{as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Concord of India Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Nirmala Devi (1979 )4SCC 365}
10. Sec. 168 MV Act enjoins the Claim Tribunals to hold an
inquiry into the claim to determine the compensation payable and
pass an award. Relevant portion of Section 168 MV Act is
reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 13 of 54
"(1) Award of the Claims Tribunal.--On receipt of an
application for compensation made under section 166, the
Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the
application to the insurer and after giving the parties
(including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hold
an inquiry into the claim or, as the case may be, each of
the claims and, subject to the provisions of section 162
may make an award determining the amount of
compensation which appears to it to be just and specifying
the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid
and in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall specify
the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or
driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or
any of them, as the case may be: Provided that where such
application makes a claim for compensation under section
140 in respect of the death or permanent disablement of
any person, such claim and any other claim (whether
made in such application or otherwise) for compensation
in respect of such death or permanent disablement shall be
disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Chapter
X.
.
.
.
11. "....Money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered." {as observed in the case of H. West and Son Limited Vs. Shephard 1958 -65 ACJ 504 (HL, England)}. It recognizes that the physical damage caused once cannot be fully undone. Something which remains as an indelible permanent signs of an unfortunate incident cannot be balanced merely by paying some monetary compensation. The process of damage and the ugly scars left on physical body and mental self, navigating through the entire process post accident and the unintended but compulsory turns that it brings in the course of life is indeed painful and traumatic. It is also required to be underlined that the damage is not restricted to the tangible injuries visible on the body of the injured rather catapults the lives of his family MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 14 of 54 members also.
12. The assessment or grant of compensation is a small attempt to render assistance to the injured to navigate through the hairpin unanticipated sudden and traumatic turn in order to bring some elbow space for him to move towards stability and normalcy to the extent possible. The underlying principle remains thus to make good the damage so far as possible as equivalent in money.
13. Section 168 MV Act puts an obligation over Tribunal to assess 'just' compensation with the object of putting the sufferer in the same position as nearly as possible as he would have been if he had not sustained the wrong. It is worthwhile to reproduce certain observations made by Karnataka High Court in the case of K. Narasimha Murthy v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd ILR 2004 KAR 2471 as referred and relied in the case of Rekha Jain Vs. National Insurance Company Limited Civil Appeal No. 5370- 5372 of 2013 which enumerates the milestones to be kept in mind by the Tribunal in an endevour to assess just compensation, at the same time acknowledging that any amount of money cannot compensate fully an injured man or completely renew a shattered human physical frame as under:
"16. The Courts and Tribunals, in bodily injury cases, while assessing compensation, should take into account all relevant circumstances, evidence, legal principles governing quantification of compensation. Further, they have to approach the issue of awarding compensation on the larger perspectives of justice, equity and good conscience and eschew technicalities in the decision-making. There should be realisation on the part of the Tribunals and Courts that the possession of one's own body is the first and most valuable of all human rights, and that all possessions and ownership are extensions of this primary right, while awarding compensation for bodily injuries. Bodily injury is to be treated as a deprivation which entitles a claimant to MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 15 of 54 damages. The amount of damages varies according to gravity of injuries."
14. It is also settled that the monetary assessment is a methodology known to law as social and legal security to a victim even though the nature of injuries and the individual ramifications might vary in different cases, therefore, it is understandable that one remedy cannot heal all. Further, the loss is in the nature of deprivation and it is unlike a personal asset with a price tag which can be simply awarded and therefore, complete accuracy in making such assessment is not humanly possible. The endevour is thus to make an assessment as best and as fair as possible under the given circumstance. The uncertainty of bringing justness to an assessment has been recognized, still holding that substantial damages must be awarded. The observations made by Lord Halsbury in the case of Mediana In re 1900 AC 113 (HL) give valuable insights into the aspect and reproduced as under:
"......Of course the whole region of inquiry into damages is one of extreme difficulty. You very often cannot even lay down any principle upon which you can give damages; nevertheless it is remitted to the jury or those who stand in place of the jury, to consider what compensation in money shall be given for what is a wrongful act. Take the most familiar and ordinary case: how is anybody to measure pain and suffering in money counted? Nobody can suggest that you can by any arithmetical calculation establish what is the exact amount of money which would represent such a thing as the pain and suffering which a person has undergone by reason of an accident....... But nevertheless the law recognises that as a topic upon which damages may be given"
15. The uncertainty involved has also been recognized by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rekha Jain (supra) where observations of Lord Blacburn in the case of Livingstone Vs. Rawyards Coal Company (1880) 5 APP CAS 25 were MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 16 of 54 referred as under:
".......where any injury is to be compensated by damages, in settling the sum of money to be given... you should as nearly as possible get at that sum of money which will put the party who has been injured.. in the same position as he would have been if he had not sustained the wrong...."
16. It is further observed by their Lordship in the case of Rekha Jain (supra) as follows:
"41.....Besides, the Court is well advised to remember that the measures of damages in all these cases 'should be such as to enable even a tortfeasor to say that he had amply atoned for his misadventure'. The observation of Lord Devlin that the proper approach to the problem or to adopt a test as to what contemporary society would deem to be a fair sum, such as would allow the wrongdoer to 'hold up his head among his neighbours and say with their approval that he has done the fair thing' is quite opposite to be kept in mind by the Court in assessing compensation in personal injury cases."
17. It is also settled that the compensation is not granted only for the physical injury but for the entire loss which results from the injury in an endevour to place the victim in a position as close as possible as prior to the accident (support drawn from National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors (2017) 16 SCC 680 also in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343). It is also settled as held in catena of judgments that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and the object of the Tribunal ought to be to assist the injured persons, (support drawn from Helen C Rebello (Mrs) & Ors. v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Anr (1999) 1 SCC 90).
18. It is settled that an injured is required to be compensated for his inability to lead full life, his inability to enjoy those MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 17 of 54 natural 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 (support drawn from C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 as further referred and relied in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) and then in a recent pronouncement of Sidram Vs Divisonal Manager United India Insurance Company & Anr SLP (Civil) No.19277 of 2018).
19. What is required of the Tribunal is to attempt objective assessment of damages as nearly as possible without fanciful or whimsical speculation even though, some conjecture specially in reference of the nature of disability and it consequence would be inevitable. {support drawn from Raj Kumar (supra) as referred and relied in Sidram (supra)}.
20. Observing that a measure of damages cannot be arrived with precise mathematical calculations and that much depends upon peculiar facts and circumstances of any matter, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India elaborated upon the expression "which appears to it to be just" in the case of Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty and Another, (2003) 7 SCC 197.
21. The observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K. Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited (2012) 12 SCC 274 provide valuable insights into the factors to be weighed by the Tribunal for determination of quantum of compensation. The relevant extract of which is reproduced as under:
"10. It is noteworthy to state that an adjudicating authority, while determining the quantum of compensation, has to keep in view the sufferings of the injured person which would include his inability to lead a full life, his incapacity to enjoy the normal MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 18 of 54 amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries and his ability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. Hence, while computing compensation the approach of the Tribunal or a court has to be broad- based. Needless to say, it would involve some guesswork as there cannot be any mathematical exactitude or a precise formula to determine the quantum of compensation. In determination of compensation the fundamental criterion of "just compensation" should be inhered."
22. The compensation has been broadly delineated as pecuniary and non pecuniary in the case of R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control India Pvt Ltd. 1995 AIR 755, it is worthwhile to reproduce certain observations made therein:
"9....while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant:
(i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non-
pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life."
23. The issue of determination of compensation in a personal injury matter was extensively deliberated by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) Relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced hereunder for further discussion:
6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:
MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 19 of 54 Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b),
(iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.
7. Assessment of pecuniary damages under Item (i) and under Item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses--Item
(iii)--depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages--Items (iv), (v) and (vi)--involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decisions of this Court and the High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability--Item (ii)(a). We are concerned with that assessment in this case.
MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 20 of 54
24. PECUNIARY DAMAGES Damages under pecuniary heads primarily involves reimbursement of actual amount spent on account of injury suffered in an accident to undo the monetary loss, suffered by the claimant, as ascertainable from the evidence on record. Given hereunder are various heads under which compensation for pecuniary damages is assessed:
24(a). Expenditure on Medical Treatment:
(i) As per the medical records of Fortis Hospital, injured sustained fractures in the left distal femur, upper tibia, and right femur. Subsequently, he continued treatment at Lok Nayak Hospital, where the injuries were further opined as Degloving Injury to the Right Inguinal Region and Left Popliteal Region.
These suggest combined orthopedic and soft tissue injuries which ultimately resulted in 19% permanent physical impairment in both lower limbs. The injured has placed on record medical bills totaling Rs. 47,426/- as Ex.PW1/2, along with a computation. In addition, a further sum of Rs. 10,000/- is awarded towards sundry/miscellaneous expenses. Accordingly, the injured is entitled to a total amount of Rs. 57,426/- (Rs. 47,426/- + Rs. 10,000/-) under the head of medical expenditure.
24(b). Expenditure on Conveyance:
(i) Claimant has stated that he incurred an expenditure of Rs.15,000/- on conveyance. Any documentary proof or bills have not been placed on record in support of this claim. Considering the nature of injury which resulted 19% physical impairment in both lower limbs, it is evident that the injured would have MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 21 of 54 required repeated visits to hospitals, including travel for follow-
up treatment. Given the mobility limitations and practical difficulties in public transport under such circumstances a sum of Rs.15,000/- appears reasonable to be awarded towards conveyance expenses.
24(c). Expenditure on Special Diet:
(i) The claimant has stated that he spent Rs.15,000/- on special diet. However, no bills have been placed on record in support of this claim. Considering the nature of injuries, it is evident that he would have required a nutritious and protein-rich diet to aid in wound healing and overall recovery. In view of the nature of injuries and the extended recovery period, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards expenditure on special diet.
24(d). Expenditure for attendant:
(i) The claimant has stated that he spent Rs. 20,000/- towards attendant charges. Considering the nature of the injury and disability with respect to both lower limbs, it is quite understandable that he would have needed assistance during hospitalization. It is also settled that assistance by family member are also to be compensated. An amount of Rs. 25,000/- is awarded under the head of attendant charges.
24(e). Loss of earning during the period of treatment:
(i) PW-1 deposed that he was employed as an AC Technician with NR-Aircom Solution, and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 17,500/-. He further stated that, in addition to the fixed salary, he used to earn extra income through commission and overtime, which brought his total monthly earnings to approximately Rs.
35,000/- at the time of the accident. During cross-examination, he MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 22 of 54 stated that his salary was paid entirely in cash and that he never received any payment via cheque. He relied upon an Appointment Letter issued in the year 2016 (Ex. PW1/4), which clearly mentions his salary as Rs. 17,500/- per month. He also filed a copy of his High School Certificate as Ex.PW1/5. The minimum wages for a matriculate in Delhi at the time of the accident were Rs. 16,858/-, which is slightly lower than his stated salary. There is no reason to disbelieve the salary reflected in the appointment letter. However, no documentary evidence has been placed on record to substantiate the additional income claimed towards overtime and commission. Therefore, his monthly income is considered as Rs. 17,500/-.
(ii) Immediately after the accident, he was admitted in Fortis Hospital where his MLC was prepared. He remained admitted there for one day and left the hospital against medical advice, as evident from the record. He was again remained hospitalized in Lok Nayak Hospital from 06.04.2018 to 19.06.2018 post accident. As per the medical records of Fortis Hospital, the injured sustained fractures in the left distal femur, upper tibia, and right femur. Subsequently, he continued treatment at Lok Nayak Hospital, where the injuries were further opined as Degloving Injury to the Right Inguinal Region and Left Popliteal Region. Considering the nature and severity of the injury, along with the medical treatment records placed on record, it can reasonably be presumed that the injured would have been unable to resume work for a period of at least six months.
Thus his loss of income is calculated to be Rs.17,500/- x 6 = Rs.1,05,000/-
MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 23 of 54 24(f) Loss of future earning
(i) It is settled that a person is required to be compensated not just for the physical injury but also for the loss he has suffered as well as the loss which he might entail for the rest of his life on account of those injuries which he sustained in the accident. This necessarily means that he is required to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy normal amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the injury, his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (Support drawn from the judgment titled as C. K. Subramania Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair (1969) 3 SCC 64.
(ii) Disability Assessment Certificate was received as per which he was opined to have suffered 19% permanent physical disability in both lower limbs,
(iii) Before proceeding further, it is important to understand as to what disability means and also types thereof. This aspect has been delved into by Hon'ble SC in Raj Kumar (supra):
"8. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a human being. Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor accident injuries, are of a much wider range when MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 24 of 54 compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 ("the Disabilities Act", for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in Section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming compensation."
(iv) The term 'disability' means the decrements to the functional efficacy of body of injured whereas 'functioning' encompass all the body functions and activities for an independent life. Functional disability is to determine the extent of loss or extent of restrictive functionality considering the nature of activities required to be necessarily performed in efficient discharge of duties and the limb effected. This computes the extent of adverse effect of physical disability upon the functional efficacy of an injured person, in turn adversely impacting his earning capacity. The process entails understanding and enumerating the skill set required for performing specific activities. To sum up, functional disability basically measures the extent of ability having been compromised to carry out basic everyday tasks or even more complex tasks required for and independent living. The limitations may occur on account of disability in the personal sphere, in the social sphere and in the occupational sphere. In the personal sphere it may encompass the daily activities of a person, his body function and his involvement in basis life situations. At the societal level, it could mean difficulty in involvement and participation in social and community activities interfering the interpersonal interaction and relationship adversely impacting the civic life. When disability restricts the vocation or employment avenues to make earning for his living, it falls in the category of disability in the occupational MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 25 of 54 sphere. The disability might occur on account of age or any illness and in the case at hand by way of an accident. A person living a normal life in particular set of circumstance and making his living by engaging in any work has suffered disability which might impead his daily life activities, both on a personal and social scale and might also impact his ability to continue earning as much as before and his future employment avenues.
(v) What is thus required to be assessed is the effect and impact of disability upon the working efficiency of injured and whether it would adversely impact his earning capabilities in future. It is settled that the Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity.
(vi) Hon'ble SC laid down certain guidelines for the Tribunal to be able to arrive at an objective figure to quantify the loss for the purpose of computing the compensation in the judgment of Raj Kumar (supra). Relevant extracts of this judgment for the purpose of further discussion are reproduced hereunder:
"Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability
9. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the same as 45% permanent disability with reference to the whole body. The extent of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of a percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole body. If there is 60% permanent disability of the right hand and 80% permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent of permanent disability with reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the body have suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 26 of 54 expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to the whole body cannot obviously exceed 100%.
10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation.
11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that the percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation. (See for example, the decisions of this Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC 254 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1258 : (2010) 10 Scale 298] and Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC 341 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1285 : (2010) 8 Scale 567] )
12. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and, if so, the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the Tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence:
(i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary;
(ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement;
(iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is, the permanent disability suffered by the MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 27 of 54 person.
If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity.
13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood.
.
.
.
.
19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above:
(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.
(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that the percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as the percentage of permanent disability).
(iii) The doctor who treated an injured claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard to the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 28 of 54 with reference to the evidence in entirety.
(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors."
(vii) Further in the case of "Mohan Soni v Ram Avtar Tomar & Ors. I (2012) ACC 1 (SC), the question at hand was deliberated and following observations as relevant in the context were made:
"In the context of loss of future earning, any physical disability resulting from an accident has to be judged with reference to the nature of work being performed by the person suffering the disability. This is the basic premise and once that is grasped, it clearly follows that the same injury or loss may affect two different persons in different ways. Take the case of a marginal farmer who does his cultivation work himself and ploughs his land with his own two hands; or the puller of a cycle-rickshaw, one of the main means of transport in hundreds of small towns all over the country. The loss of one of the legs either to the marginal farmer or the cycle-rickshaw-puller would be the end of the road insofar as their earning capacity is concerned. But in case of a person engaged in some kind of desk work in an office, the loss of a leg may not have the same effect. The loss of a leg (or for that matter the loss of any limb) to anyone is bound to have very traumatic effects on one's personal, family or social life but the loss of one of the legs to a person working in the office would not interfere with his work/earning capacity in the same degree as in the case of a marginal farmer or a cycle-rickshaw-puller.
(viii) The question of assessment of impact of disability on the earning capacity has been dealt in several cases but it is understood that each case has to be evaluated on its contextual dynamics established by way of evidence at hand. It brings us to a question whether extent of permanent disability as medically determined can simply be taken to be the extent of functional disability and hence, the loss of earning capacity. It has been held in various pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Hon'ble High Court that equating the two as a criteria would MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 29 of 54 result in an inobjective and absurd compensation. There however, might be certain cases where the two would correspond to each other but it cannot be mechanically applied rather requires evaluation of applicable factors independently in each case to reach at a fair quantification of loss of earning capacity.
(ix) In the case of Raj Kumar (supra), the physical functional disability of left leg was assessed to be 75% and total body disability at 37.5 %. In this case, functional disability was also assessed at 75% and it was observed that the extent of physical functional disability has to be considered so as to grant just and proper compensation towards loss of future earning as the earning capacity of injured was totally negated having been rendered incapable of doing any manual work. It was also held that if permanent disability in relation to particular limb renders the injured permanently disabled from pursuing his normal vocation or any other similar work, there is no reason as to why compensation should be granted on the basis of physical disability in relation to whole body. In another matter of Syed Sadiq Etc vs Divisional Manager,United India AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT 1052, where functional disability was considered to be 65% by Hon'ble High Court in case of a vegetable vendor whose right leg had to be amputated was set aside and it was observed that loss of limb is often equivalent to loss of livelihood specially in manual labour cases and determined the functional disability at 85%. In another matter of Arvind Kumar Mishra, injured suffered grievous injuries and remained in coma for about 2 months and was held to be permanently disabled to the extent of 70 per cent with his right hand amputated whereas his loss of earning capacity was held to MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 30 of 54 be 90%. Similarly in case of K Janardhan v United India Insurance Company AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2384, Hon'ble Supereme Court of India, held that a tanker driver suffered 100% functional disability and incapacity to earn as a tanker driver as his right leg was amputated from the knee. In the case of Pappu Deo Yadav v Naresh Kumar, MAC App. 117/2018, injured suffered loss of an arm and therefore, was unable to carry out his functions as a typist / data entry operator and thus acknowledging the impact of injury upon the income generating capacity of victim, the extent of functional disablement and loss of income generating earning capacity was equated with the extent of permanent disablement as medically assessed at 89%. Similarly, in the case of Sidram (supra), injured suffered paraplegia due to accident and was medically assessed with permanent disability to the tune of 45%, however, he was held to have suffered 100% loss of earning capacity.
(x) PW-1 / injured has stated that he was working as an AC Technician with M/s NR-AIRCOM Solution. As per the medical record, he suffered fractures in both thighs, resulting in 19% permanent disability in both lower limbs. The work of an AC Technician involves tasks like climbing stairs and ladders, reaching rooftops, and moving into tight spaces, which need strength and mobility. Due to the disability, he is likely to face difficulty in walking, climbing, and standing for long, which affects his ability to do such work properly. Although he may still manage some light duties, his reduced mobility affects his overall work performance and income. It is also well settled that an injured person cannot be expected to change his profession only because of the disability which would compositely be even MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 31 of 54 more detrimental and would have compound effect on efficiency and efficiency of petitioner. It is also noted that petitioner suffered impairment in both lower limbs. Considering the nature of his job and his injuries, his functional disability is assessed as 19% in relation to his earning capacity.
24(g) Future Prospect:
(i) It is also held therein that future prospect (as laid down in the well considered judgment of National Insurance Company v Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680) shall be payable, not only in fatal cases but also in the case of permanent disability. The observations made in the said case as relevant to the context are reproduced hereunder:
"6. The principle consistently followed by this court in assessing motor vehicle compensation claims, is to place the victim in as near a position as she or he was in before the accident, with other compensatory directions for loss of amenities and other payments. These general principles have been stated and reiterated in several decisions.
7. Two questions arise for consideration: one, whether in cases of permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor accident, the claimant can seek, apart from compensation for future loss of income, amounts for future Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. [Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683. This court referred to the pronouncements in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 551; Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka (2009) 6 SCC 1; Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan (2009) 13 SCC 422; Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343. Govind Yadav spelt out these principles by stating that the courts should, "in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily. If the victim of the accident suffers permanent disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the loss of earning and his inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident." These decisions were also followed in ICICI MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 32 of 54 Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar Mohanty, (2018) 3 SCC 686. prospects too; and two, the extent of disability. On the first question, the High Court no doubt, is technically correct in holding that Pranay Sethi involved assessment of compensation in a case where the victim died.
However, it went wrong in saying that later, the three-judge bench decision in Jagdish was not binding, but rather that the subsequent decision in Anant10 to the extent that it did not award compensation for future prospects, was binding. This court is of the opinion that there was no justification for the High Court to have read the previous rulings of this court, to exclude the possibility of compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement. Such a narrow reading of Pranay Sethi11 is illogical, because it denies altogether the 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.
.
.
(ii) Hon'ble Supreme Court further discussed several cases involving permanent disability and observed as under:
20. Courts should not adopt a stereotypical or myopic approach, but instead, view the matter taking into account the realities of life, both in the assessment of the extent of disabilities, and compensation under various heads.
.
.
....What is to be seen, as emphasized by decision after decision, is the impact of the injury upon the income generating capacity of the victim. The loss of a limb (a leg or arm) and its severity on that account is to be judged in relation to the profession, vocation or business of the victim; there cannot be a blind arithmetic formula for ready application. On an overview of the principles outlined in the previous decisions, it is apparent that the income generating capacity of the appellant was undoubtedly severely affected".
(iii) PW-1 has filed his Aadhar Card as Ex.PW1/8 on record as per which his date of birth is 30.07.1992, therefore, his age as on the date of accident was about 25 years and 8 months. Since the injured was below the age of 40 years (at the time of accident) MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 33 of 54 and was employed on a fixed salary, thus as laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the percentage towards future prospect is taken to be @ 40 % upon application of category of ''self- employed or on a fixed salary''.
(iv) Multiplier: The multiplier method was coined by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarla Verma v Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 3483 of 2008, decided on 15.04.2009 to ascertain the future loss of income in relation to the age of the deceased, in order to bring about the uniformity and consistency in determination of compensation payable in fatal and serious injuries matters. Relevant observations with respect to the multiplier method in the abovementioned case read as under:
"The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed-up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last."
(v) The standard multiplier method was directed to be applied not only to ascertain the loss of dependancy in fatal accident case but also to determine future loss of earning in serious disability matters as well {as laid in the case of Raj Kumar (supra)}. In a recent Judgment of Pappu Dev Yadav (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court of India relied upon and reiterated the principles laid in various judgments passed by it in the case of Sr. Antony @ Antony Swamy v Managing Director KSRTC, Civil Appeal No. MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 34 of 54 2551 of 2018 and held that stereotypical or myopic approach must be avoided and pragmatic reality of life must be taken into account to determine the impact of extent of disability upon the income generated capacity of victim.
(vi) The income of the injured per annum as determined upon appreciation of evidence, thus, forms the multiplicand. A table of multiplier with reference to the age was laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The appropriate multiplier, applicable in this case would be 18 (for age group between 45 to 50 years).
(vi) In view of the above discussion of law, the calculation under future loss of income in the present case is as under:
(a) Annual income (Rs. 17,500/- x 12) = Rs.2,10,000/-
(b) Future prospect (40% of Rs 2,10,000/-) = Rs. 84,000/-
__________________
(c) Total = Rs. 2,94,000/-
(d) Thus, Multiplicand = Rs. 2,94,000/-
(e) Hence, the 'Total Loss of Future Income' shall be :-
Percentage of Functional Disability (Multiplicand X Multiplier).
19% (Rs. 2,94,000/- X 18) = Rs. 10,05,480/-
25. NON-PECUNIARY LOSS
(a) Injured is entitled to both, pecuniary as well as non-
MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 35 of 54
pecuniary damages. As the name suggests, pecuniary damages are designed to make good the pecuniary loss which can be ascertained in terms of money whereas non pecuniary damages are general damages to compensate the injured for mental and physical shock, pain, suffering, loss of expectation of life, inconvenience, hardship, frustration, stress, dejectment and unhappiness suffered by him on account of injuries sustained in the accident. It takes into account all the aspects of a normal life which deluded injured on account of accident. Given the nature of heads covered, it is bound to involve guess work on the part of Tribunal involving some hypothetical consideration as well, primarily considering the special circumstances of the injured and the effect of those upon his future life.
(ii) Regarding non-pecuniary loss, following was stated in Halsbury's Laws of England, 4 th Edition, Vol. 12 (page 446) {also been referred to and relied upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sidram (supra)} "Non-pecuniary loss: the pattern: Damages awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenity constitute a conventional sum which is taken to be the sum which society deems fair, fairness being interpreted by the courts in the light of previous decisions. Thus there has been evolved a set of conventional principles providing a provisional guide to the comparative severity of different injuries, and indicating a bracket of damages into which a particular injury will currently fall. The particular circumstances of the plaintiff, including his age and any unusual deprivation he may suffer, is reflected in the actual amount of the award.
(iii) In case of Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC 667, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the object of an award of damages is to give the plaintiff compensation for damage, loss or injury he has suffered. The Court further held that the elements of damage recognized by law are divisible into two main groups: pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss.
While the pecuniary loss is capable of being arithmetically worked out, the non- pecuniary loss is not so calculable. Non-pecuniary loss MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 36 of 54 is compensated in terms of money, not as a substitute or replacement for other money, but as a substitute, what McGregor says, is generally more important than money: it is the best that a court can do.
(iv). Further, in the case of Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 274, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that if a collection of cases on the quantum of damages is to be useful, it must necessarily be classified in such a way that comparable cases can be grouped together. No doubt, no two cases are alike but still, it is possible to make a broad classification which enables one to bring comparable awards together. Inflation should be taken into account while calculating damages.
(The above two cases were also referred and relied in the case of A. Rupin Manohar Through Sh. S. Anandha vs Mohd. Ansari & Ors. MAC App. 602/2015 decided on 17 August, 2017 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court).
(c) To sum up, Compensation under non-pecuniary heads involves objective assessment of the damages in a bid to undo the loss, the injured would incur on account of his inability to a normal life and earn as much as he could, but for the injuries sustained. The whole idea behind assessment for damages for compensation is to put the claimant in the same position in so far as money can. The very nature of these damages, compulsorily involves some guesswork and hypothetical considerations, however, efforts should be made to adjudicate these on the basis of objective parameters rather than guided by subjective sympathy. The nature and severity of injury, the age, nature of disability are some of those parameters. Given hereunder are various heads under which compensation for non-pecuniary loss (general damages) is assessed:
25(a). Damages for pain, suffering and trauma on account of MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 37 of 54 injuries:
(i) The mental and physical loss cannot always be arithmetically computed in terms of money. These form the intangible losses suffered by injured for no fault of his. Although any form of human suffering cannot be equated in money, however, the object remains to compensate in so far as the money can compensate. Certain observations made by the Supreme Court of India in R. D. Hattangadi are relevant in the context:
"10. It cannot be disputed that because of the accident the appellant who was an active practising lawyer has become paraplegic on account of the injuries sustained by him. It is really difficult in this background to assess the exact amount of compensation for the pain and agony suffered by the appellant and for having become a lifelong handicapped. No amount of compensation can restore the physical frame of the appellant. That is why it has been said by courts that whenever any amount is determined as the compensation payable for any injury suffered during an accident, the object is to compensate such injury "so far as money can compensate" because it is impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings or personal deprivations. Money cannot renew a broken and shattered physical frame.
(ii) Certain factors were also laid down for consideration in the case of The Divisional Controller, KSRTC vs Mahadeva Shetty And Anr Appeal (Civil) 5453 of 2003 further relied in the case of Sidram (supra) for awarding compensation for pain and suffering. The observations made in the aforesaid case as relevant to the context are reproduced hereunder:
"113. Before we close this matter, it needs to be underlined, as observed in Pappu Deo Yadav (supra) that Courts should be mindful that a serious injury not only permanently imposes physical limitations and disabilities but too often inflicts deep mental and emotional scars upon the victim. The attendant trauma of the victim's having to live in a world entirely different from the one she or he is born into, as an invalid, and with degrees of dependence on others, robbed of complete personal choice MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 38 of 54 or autonomy, should forever be in the judge's mind, whenever tasked to adjudge compensation claims. Severe limitations inflicted due to such injuries undermine the dignity (which is now recognized as an intrinsic component of the right to life under Article 21) of the individual, thus depriving the person of the essence of the right to a wholesome life which she or he had lived, hitherto. From the world of the able bodied, the victim is thrust into the world of the disabled, itself most discomfiting and unsettling. If courts nit-pick and award niggardly amounts oblivious of these circumstances, there is resultant affront to the injured victim. [See: Pappu Deo Yadav (supra)]
(iii) Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K. Suresh (supra) observed as follows:
"2. ... There cannot be actual compensation for anguish of the heart or for mental tribulations. The quintessentiality lies in the pragmatic computation of the loss sustained which has to be in the realm of realistic approximation. Therefore, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity "the Act") stipulates that there should be grant of "just compensation". Thus, it becomes a challenge for a court of law to determine "just compensation" which is neither a bonanza nor a windfall, and simultaneously, should not be a pittance."
But the measure of compensation must reflect a genuine attempt of the law to restore the dignity of the being. Our yardsticks of compensation should not be so abysmal as to lead one to question whether our law values human life. If it does, as it must, it must provide a realistic recompense for the pain of loss and the trauma of suffering. Awards of compensation are not law's doles. In a discourse of rights, they constitute entitlements under law. Our conversations about law must shift from a paternalistic subordination of the individual to an assertion of enforceable rights as intrinsic to human dignity. (as relied in the case of Jagdish v Mohan AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT 1347, by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India).
(iv) The injured has suffered 19% permanent physical disability in both lower limbs, which must have affected his physical mobility and also caused mental anguish, emotional distress, and psychological suffering. He is now forced to adjust to a life with physical limitations and a loss of normalcy.
MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 39 of 54 Considering the nature and extent of the disability, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- is awarded to the injured as compensation for the pain, suffering, and mental trauma sustained due to the accident.
25(b). Loss of amenities of life:
(i) It compensates the victim on account of his inability to enjoy the basis amenities of life as any other normal person can, taking into account the age and the deprivation he would have to undergo and suffer due to injuries. Certain observations were made by Hon'ble High Court of Gujrat in the case of Vijaykumar Babulal Modi vs State Of Gujarat SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20488 of 2017 referred by HSC in the case of Sidram (supra) which is reproduced hereunder:
"It appears that the claim under this head is to the tune of Rs.3 lac. However, the Tribunal has not awarded any sum under the head 'loss of amenities'. We are of the opinion that this head must take into account all aspects of a normal life that have been lost due to the injury caused. As per R.D. Hattangadi's case (supra), this includes a variety of matters such as the inability to walk, run or sit, etc. We include here too the loss of childhood pleasure such as the ability to freely play, dance, run, etc., the loss of ability to freely move or travel without assistance...."
(ii) The injury sustained by the injured shall restrict him to enjoy the basic amenities of life as any other normal person can. Taking into account the age and the deprivation he would have to undergo and suffer due to injuries. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by claimant, an amount of Rs. 20,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities.
26. The compensation awarded against pecuniary and non- pecuniary damages under various heads is being sequentially put in a tabulated form hereunder for ease of reference to all MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 40 of 54 concerned:
27. Having regard to the law as also discussed above regarding compensation, in the present case award amount is calculated as under:
1. Pecuniary loss : - Quantum
(i) Expenditure on treatment : Rs.57,426/-
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance : Rs. 15,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet : Rs. 15,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing / attendant : Rs. 25,000/-
(v) Loss of income : Rs. 1,05,000/-
(vi) Loss of Future Income: Rs. 10,05,480/-
2. Non-Pecuniary Loss :
(I) Compensation of Pain and Suffering Rs.1,00,000/-
as well as mental and physical shock :
(iii) Loss of amenities of life : Rs.20,000/-
Total Compensation Rs.13,42,906/-
Deduction, if any, NA
Total Compensation after deduction Rs.13,42,906/-
Interest As directed
below
28 Interest:
28 (a). It is settled that any fixed rate of interest cannot be
prescribed for all cases at all times and would largely depend upon the prevailing rate of interest as per the applicable guidelines. As such, interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum is deemed fit and accordingly granted in the present case. (Reliance placed upon National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Yad Ram MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 41 of 54 MAC APP 526/2018 also referred and relied in case of The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Sohan Lal & Ors. MAC APP 70/2024 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court).
29. Liability:-
29(a). Insurance Company has conceded valid and effective Insurance Policy on the date of accident however, has contended that the owner did not have a valid permit for plying his vehicle on the road at the time of accident. R3W1 Ms. Lalita Anand, Administrative Officer, Oriental Insurance Company affirmed that permit of the offending vehicle bearing Reg. No. RJ 14GE 2340 was valid from 12.04.2017 till 02.04.2018 and then from 06.04.2018 till 02.04.2019 whereas the accident took place on 05.04.2018 thus the permit was clearly not valid as on the date of accident. She also deposed that the insurance company had appointed Investigator Sh. Narender Singh who had verified the permit from the office of Additional Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jagatpura, Jaipur which confirmed that the permit was not valid as on 05.04.2018. She deposed that owner had violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. She also deposed that counsel on behalf of company had issued notice dated 15.11.2021 under Order XII Rule 8 CPC to produce valid permit covering the date of accident. She relied upon Report of the Regional Transport Authority, Jagatpura Jaipur as Ex.R3W1/3 and notice under Order XII Rule 8 Ex.R3W1/4 and postal receipt as Ex.R3W1/5. Counsel for the Insurance Company relied upon the judgment in the case of Ram Pher (supra) arguing that plying a vehicle without a valid permit is a violation and constitutes a statutory defence under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 42 of 54 Act.
29(b). Per contra, R-2 Rajeev Sangar tendered evidentiary affidavit affirming that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation as the vehicle was duly insured as on the date of accident.
29(c). As per the Certificate of Permit Ex.R3W1/3 bearing no. 46139, permit was valid from 03.04.2012 to 02.04.2017 which was renewed w.e.f. 12.04.2017 till 02.04.2022. The accident took place on 05.04.2018 thus, permit was very much valid as on the date of accident. It also reflects that the validity of authorisation commenced from 06.04.2018 and extended till 02.04.2019. The Permit Report given by Investigator also asserts the same point that the permit was not valid on 05.04.2018 as authorisation validity commenced from 06.04.2018. There is no evidence on record that the owner / Rajeev Sengar ever replied to the notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC and produced authorisation receipt factually covering the date of accident. 29(d). Counsel for R-2 has vehemently argued, relying upon the transaction references filed in support of Certificate of Permit that the authorisation was issued on 06.04.2018 whereas it actually came into effect as on 02.04.2018 and therefore, the authorisation validity duly covered the date of accident. He relied upon Sec. 81 (5) of MV Act along with judgment in the case of Dr. Narasimulu Nandini Memorial Vs. Banu Begum, First Appeal No.202022/2016 and Manish Narayan Vs. Seema Bouri & Ors. 2009 ACJ -2271 (Jharkhand).
Legal Framework on the issue at hand:-
29(e) Section 66 of MV Act envisages plying of any transport MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 43 of 54 vehicle strictly in tune with condition mentioned in permit. It reads as under:
"66 Necessity for permits. - (1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority authorising him the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used:
Provided that a stage carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the use of the vehicle as a contract carriage:
Provided further that a stage carriage permit may, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the use of the vehicle as a goods carriage either when carrying passengers or not:
Provided also that a goods carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the holder to use the vehicle for the carriage of goods for or in connection with a trade or business carried on by him. [Provided also that where a transport vehicle has been issued any permit or permits, as well as a licence under this Act, such vehicle may be used either under the permit, or permits, so issued to it, or under such licence, at the discretion of the vehicle owner.] (2)The holder of a goods carriage permit may use the vehicle, for drawing of any trailer or semi-trailer not owned by him, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed:
[Provided that the holder of a permit of any articulated vehicle may use the prime-mover of that articulated vehicle for any other semi-trailer.] ...
......................."
29(f) It is settled that non compliance with permit condition constitutes an infraction and is available to insurance company as a defence to avoid or refuse liability to indemnify insured. Section 149 (2) MV Act enlists the defences so available, relevant extract of which is reproduced hereunder:
MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 44 of 54 "149. (2) No sum shall be payable by an insurer under sub-
section (1) in respect of any judgment or award unless, before the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment or award is given the insurer had notice through the Court or, as the case may be, the Claims Tribunal of the bringing of the proceedings, or in respect of such judgment or award so long as execution is stayed thereon pending an appeal; and an insurer to whom notice of the bringing of any such proceedings is so given shall be entitled to be made a party thereto and to defend the action on any of the following grounds, namely:--
(a) that there has been a breach of a specified condition of the policy, being one of the following conditions, namely:--
(i) a condition excluding the use of the vehicle--
(a) xxx (b) xxx (c) for a purpose not allowed by the permit under which the vehicle is used, where the vehicle is a transport vehicle .................."
29(g) It is also settled that any permit issued by RTA shall be valid only for plying in state/ region unless specifically authorised for contiguous / other States. Section 88 of MV Act is reproduced hereunder:
"88. Validation of permits for use outside region in which granted. - (1) Except as may be otherwise prescribed, a permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority of any one region shall not be valid in any other region, unless the permit has been countersigned by the Regional Transport Authority of that other region, and a permit granted in any one State shall not be valid in any other State unless countersigned by the State Transport Authority of that other State or by the Regional Transport Authority concerned:
29(h) It is not in dispute that offending vehicle was holding All India National Permit as on the date of accident. Explanation appended to Section 88 (12) MV Act defines National Permit which reads as under:
"national permit means a permit granted by the appropriate authority to goods carriages to operate throughout the territory of India or in such contiguous States not being less than four in number, including the State in which the permit is issued as may be specified in such permit in accordance with the choice indicated in the application."
MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 45 of 54 29(i) Section 88 (12) MV Act authorises issuance of National Permit to cover all India mobility of Transport Vehicle which reads as under:
"12. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), but, subject to the rules that may be made by the Central Government under sub-section (14), the appropriate authority may, for the purpose of encouraging long distance inter-State road transport, grant in a State, national permits in respect of goods carriages and the provisions of sections 69, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, [clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 87 and section 89] shall, as far as may be, apply to or in relation to the grant of national permits."
29(j). Section 81 MV Act lays down the law in respect of renewal of permit. It would be relevant at this stage to refer Sec. 81 MV Act for further discussion:
"(1).........
(2) A permit may be renewed on an application made not less than fifteen days before the date of its expiry.
(3)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), the Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority, as the case may be, may entertain an application for the renewal of a permit after the last date specified in that sub-section if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient cause from making an application within the time specified.
(4)..............
(5) Where a permit has been renewed under this section after the expiry of the period thereof, such renewal shall have effect from the date of such expiry irrespective of whether or not a temporary permit has been granted under clause (d) of section 87, and where a temporary permit has been granted, the fee paid in respect of such temporary permit shall be refunded."
29(k) Section 81 MV Act conceptualizes 'deemed permit' during the period between expiry of permit and renewal thereof. In case at hand, permit itself was valid, however, authorisation validity MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 46 of 54 upon payment of authorisation fee has been disputed.
29(l) It is settled that authorisation validity is also pivotal in permit verification so as to ply the vehicle outside state. Certain observation of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Mohd. Manzoor & Anr. Vs. Khuyabuda Khatun & Ors. MAC App 401/2016 as relevant to the context are reproduced as under:
4. A division bench of Kerala High Court had the occasion to go into similar issues in a judgment reported as MC Sunil Vs. Regional Transport Officer, Palakkad and Ors., AIR 2005 Kerala
221. Since the view taken in the said judgment commends itself being followed in view of the relevant provisions of law, the relevant observations appearing therein need to be referred to.
5. Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 defines "national permit" by clause (c) of the explanation appended thereto to mean "a permit granted by the appropriate authority to goods carriages to operate throughout the territory of India or in such contiguous States, not being less than four in number including the State in which the permit is issued as may be specified in such permit in accordance with the choice indicated in the application". Mere taking of a national permit from the State Transport Authority is not sufficient to allow a vehicle to be plied outside the State. For such purposes i.e. plying the vehicle outside the State where it is registered, there is a need for "authorization". Such authorization is issued by the State Transport Authority upon payment of "authorization fee", an expression which is defined by clause (b) in the explanation appended to Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act so as to mean "the annual fee not exceeding one thousand rupees, which may be charged by the appropriate authority of a State to enable a motor vehicle, covered by the permit referred to in sub-sections (9) and (12) to be used in other State subject to the payment of taxes or fees, if any, levied by the States concerned".
29(m) The term 'authorisation fee' has been defined in Explanation to Section 88 MV Act which reads as under:
"88(b) authorisation fee means the annual fee, not exceeding one thousand rupees, which may be charged by the appropriate authority of a State to enable a motor vehicle, covered by the MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 47 of 54 permit referred to in sub-sections (9) and (12) to be used in other States subject to the payment of taxes or fees, if any, levied by the States concerned;
29(n) Rule 87 MV Act lays down the procedure and validity of authorisation which reads as under:
"87. Form, contents and duration of authorisation.--(1) An application for the grant of an authorisation for a national permit shall be made in Form 46 and shall be accompanied by a fee of Rs. 500 per annum in the form of a bank draft.
(2) Every authorization shall be granted in Form 47 subject to the payment of the taxes or fees, if any levied by the States concerned.
(2-A) The authority which grants the authorisation shall inform the State Transport Authorities concerned the registration number of the motor vehicle, the name and address of the permit holder and the period for which the said authorisation is valid. (3) The period of validity of an authorisation shall not exceed one year at a time."
29(o) If the concept of a 'deemed permit' is considered valid for the purpose of renewal of a permit after its expiry, then the authorisation fee for the period during which the main permit remained valid cannot be treated distinctly. It cannot be stated that concept of 'deemed authorisation' as analogous to 'deemed permit' under Section 81(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act would not apply to authorisation pending renewal. Further, if the statute itself provides for the validity of the permit during the interregnum period, there is no reason why the Rules framed under the statute would not also qualify for the same exemption. 29(p) Counsel for the insurance company argued that no application has been placed on record to assess whether it was filed within the prescribed period i.e. within 15 days prior to the date of expiry of authorisation. As far as the validity of the authorisation is concerned, it is evident that the accident occurred MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 48 of 54 on 05.04.2018, and the authorisation validity commenced from 06.04.2018. It is very unlikely that the authorisation would have been issued the very next day had it not been applied earlier. Section 81 MV Act does not bar the renewal of a permit even if the application is not made within 15 days prior to expiry. There is no reason as to why the authorisation validity would be treated differently which is subset of the primary statutory requirement of owners holding a valid permit as on the date of accident. Therefore, the objection raised by the insurance company that the copy of application seeking renewal has not been filed in evidence to assess whether fee was submitted in less than 15 days from the date of expiry is of no consequence.
29(q) The Transactions Status, running from 13.04.2012 till 02.04.2020 has been filed as part of the permit report issued on behalf of RTA Jagatpura, Jaipur. It shows that the validity of authorisation continues to be extended upto 02 nd April every year starting from the year 2013 till the year 2020 whereas it gets issued on different dates spanning a gap of 4 to 15 days from the date of expiry of validity. It is mentioned in the statutory provision itself and also as reflected from the transaction status that the validity of authorisation is yearly extended. Therefore, even though, the issuance of formal authorisation gets beyond the date of expiry however, it is considered valid only till a particular yearly date which gives the inference that the formal issuance of authorisation is distinct from the period of actual validity including the date of commencement. It can be so inferred as the transaction status only mentions the date of issuance of authorisation rather than date of commencement of validity of authorisation. As clearly mentioned in Sec.81 (5) MV Act, the MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 49 of 54 date of validity of transaction shall go back to the date of previous expiry of validity of authorisation irrespective of date of formal issuance of authorisation. It is reflected that the authorisation was issued on 12.04.2017 which was valid upto 02.04.2018 and subsequently, authorisation was issued on 06.04.2018 which was valid upto 02.04.2019. Given by the above reasoning, it can be inferred that the authorisation of validity even though formally issued as on 06.04.2018 shall be considered valid from the date of previous expiry which was 02.04.2018 and thus the date of accident was duly covered with a valid authorisation of permit. The contention raised by the insurance company in respect of lack of authorisation of validity of permit as on the date of accident is rejected.
29(r). Insurance Company has conceded valid and effective Insurance Policy on the date of accident in WS as well as during evidence and further not raised any statutory defence. It has already been held that accident occurred on account of speedy and rash driving of offending vehicle. It is settled that Insurance Company is responsible to indemnify owner / insured for vicarious liability incurred by tort feaser. Therefore, such principal award amount/compensation will be payable by the insurance company of offending vehicle with simple interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of petition till actual realization. (If there is any order regarding excluding of interest for specific period same be complied at the time of calculation of award amount).
30. The award amount shall be deposited by the Insurance Company. Counsel for the Insurance Company is also directed to MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 50 of 54 furnish the complete case details, including the MACT case number, CNR number, FIR number, name of Police Station, name of the deceased/claimant(s), date of accident, and any other relevant particulars, to the State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi at the time of getting the amount deposited. The amount shall be deposited through RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in the account titled "MACT FUND PARKING", Account No. 00000042706870765, IFSC Code SBIN0014244, MICR Code 110002342, under intimation to the Nazir of this Tribunal.
31. Release of Award Amount/ Disbursement 31(a) Out of total award amount, Rs.10,00,000/- along with proportionate interest (to the principle amount) up to date interest shall be kept in form of monthly FDR of Rs.10,000/- each. Remaining amount along with proportionate up to date interest shall be released in his bank account.
32. In terms of the Practice Directions issued by Hon'ble High Court, vide reference no. 134/Rules/DHC, dated 14.05.2025, the claimant (s) are directed to produce their bank account details along with either a certificate of the banker giving all details of the bank account of the person or persons entitled to receive the compensation including IFS Code, or a copy of cancelled cheque of the bank account to this Tribunal with seven days of the date of Award, if not already placed on record. They are also directed to file their Aadhar Card and PAN Card if not already filed.
33. Directions to the Branch Manager, SBI, Saket Court Complex:
(a). The Manager, SBI, Saket Court Complex, is further MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 51 of 54 directed to verify the documents and details submitted by the claimant pertaining to their bank account, and upon proper verification, under certification of the Branch Manager (of the bank whose details have been provided by the claimant for release of the compensation amount) disburse the amount, directed to be released to the claimant, directly into the verified bank account of the claimant under notice to the Tribunal.
34. Directions with respect to Fixed Deposit:
(a) As per Practice Directions, Hon'ble High Court, vide reference no. 134/Rules/DHC, dated 14.05.2025, the bank shall invest the amount to be deposited in fixed deposit with any nationalised bank and fixed deposit shall be with the standing instructions to the bank to renew the same after periodical intervals till further orders are passed by the Tribunal.
(b) The Bank shall not permit any joint name (s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of victim i.e. the savings bank account of the claimant shall be individual savings bank account and not a joint account.
(c) 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.
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR (s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/ or debit card to claimant (s). However, in case the debit card and/ or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 52 of 54 same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit freeze the account of the claimant so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque book and / or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
35. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD.
1 Date of accident 05.04.2018 2 Name of injured Mohd. Adil 3 Age of the injured 25 years and 8 months 4 Occupation of the AC Technician injured 5 Income of the injured Rs.17,500/-
6 Nature injury Grievous injury and 19% physical disability in both lower limbs.
7 Medical treatment taken As per record.
by the injured:
8 Period of As per record.
Hospitalization
MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 53 of 54
9 Whether any permanent Grievous injury and 19%
disability? physical disability in both
lower limbs.
36. Copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost. The copy of award be also sent to the Ld. Secretary DLSA and Ld. Digitally signed Metropolitan Magistrate. by SHELLY Announced in the open court SHELLY ARORA on 14.07.2025 ARORA Date:
2025.07.14 16:32:20 +0530 Shelly Arora PO (MACT)-02, SE/Saket/Delhi 14.07.2025 MACT No.: 845/2018 Mohd. Adil VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 54 of 54