Delhi District Court
Neeta Bhatia (Wife Of Injured), Fir No. ... vs Aman Kumar on 26 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANJANI MAHAJAN, PRESIDING
OFFICER : MACT : SOUTH DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS :
NEW DELHI
AWARD/JUDGMENT
MACT/Petition No. : 238/23
CNR No. DLST01-005570-2023
1. Ms. Neeta Bhatia
W/o Late Anil Bhatia
R/o H. No. A1/275, Sector-06,
Rohini, North West District,
Delhi - 110085
2. Sh. Shivam Bhatia
S/o Late Anil Bhatia
R/o H. No. A1/275, Sector-06,
Rohini, North West District,
Delhi - 110085
...Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Aman Kumar
S/o Sh. Naresh Kumar @ Naresh Rajak
R/o H. No. E-55/2, Suman Colony
Chattarpur Extension Mehrauli,
New Delhi - 110074
...Driver
2. Sh. Naresh Rajak @ Naresh Kumar
S/o Sh. Ugam Rajak
R/o H. No. E-55/2, Suman Colony
Chattarpur Extension Mehrauli,
New Delhi - 110074
...Owner
Neeta Bhatia & Anr Vs. Aman Kumar & Ors
MACT No. 238/2023 Page No.1 of 32
3. M/s Liberty General Insurance Co. Ltd
Through its Manager DTJ-415,
4th Floor, DLF Tower B, Jasola, New Delhi.
...Insurance Company
...Respondents
Date of Institution : 06.06.2023
Date of reserving of judgment/order : 18.11.2025
Date of pronouncement : 26.11.2025
FORM-XVII
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE
1. Date of the accident 25.02.2021
2. Date of filing of Form-I - N.A.
First Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to N.A.
the victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III N.A.
from the Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV N.A.
from the Owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- N.A.
Interim Accident Report
(IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA N.A.
and Form-VIB from the
Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII-
Detailed Accident Report N.A.
(DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay
or deficiency on the part of N.A.
the Investigating Officer? If
so, whether any action/
direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Date not mentioned
Designated Officer by the
Neeta Bhatia & Anr Vs. Aman Kumar & Ors
MACT No. 238/2023 Page No.2 of 32
Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated
Officer of the Insurance Yes
Company submitted his report
within 30 days of the
petition/DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay
or deficiency on the part of No
the Designated Officer of the
Insurance Company? If so,
whether any action/direction
warranted?
13. Date of response of the Nil amount was mentioned
petitioner(s) to the offer of the in the legal offer.
Insurance Company
14. Date of the award 26.11.2025
15. Whether the petitioner(s)
was/were directed to open -
savings bank account(s) near
their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which -
petitioner(s) was/were
directed to open savings bank
account(s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN
Card and Aadhaar Card and
the direction to the bank not
issue any cheque book/debit
card to the petitioner(s) and
make an endorsement to this
effect on the passbook.
17. Date on which the -
petitioner(s) produced the
passbook of their savings
bank account near the place
of their residence along-with
the endorsement, PAN Card
and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential R/o H. No. A1/275,
Neeta Bhatia & Anr Vs. Aman Kumar & Ors
MACT No. 238/2023 Page No.3 of 32
Address of the petitioners. Sector-06,
Rohini, North West District,
Delhi - 110085.
19. Whether the petitioner(s)
savings bank account(s) is/are -
near his/her/their place of
residence?
20. Whether the petitioner(s)
was/were examined at the -
time of passing of the award
to ascertain his/her/their
financial condition?
JUDGMENT
(1) Vide this judgment/award, the present Detailed Accident Report (DAR) filed by the Investigating Agency which has been converted into a claim petition U/s 166 (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short M.V. Act) for grant of compensation to the petitioners shall be disposed of.
Brief Facts of the Case (2) Succinctly stated the relevant facts to decide the present case as borne out from the record are that on 25.02.2021 at about 11:15 am at Shivalik Road Bus Stand a Bullet motorcycle no. DL 3SEJ 6892 (which was being driven by the respondent no.1 Mr. Aman Kumar) coming at a high speed from Shivalik Road, Malviya Nagar and going towards Panchsheel Flyover hit the pedestrian Mr. Anil Bhatia/injured (since deceased) at the back due to which Mr. Anil Bhatia sustained grievous injuries. DD No. 39 A was registered at the Police Station Malviya Nagar.
(3) Subsequently a case U/s 279/337 IPC was registered vide FIR No. 162/2021 PS Malviya Nagar and upon the doctor's Neeta Bhatia & Anr Vs. Aman Kumar & Ors MACT No. 238/2023 Page No.4 of 32 opinion received regarding the nature of injuries being 'grievous' in nature, the offence U/s 338 IPC in place of Section 337 IPC was invoked by the Investigating Agency.
(4) The offending vehicle is stated to be owned by the respondent no. 2 Mr. Naresh Kumar and insured by the respondent no. 3 Liberty General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Miscellaneous Proceedings (5) All the respondents appeared before the Tribunal on the first date of hearing. The respondents no. 1 and 2 filed a joint written statement (W.S.). The respondent no. 3 Insurance Company filed its computation /legal offer for settlement which was apparently rejected by the petitioners.
Stand of the Respondents no. 1 and 2 (Driver and Owner) respectively (6) Preliminary objections were taken by the respondents in the W.S. Inter-alia it was averred that the respondent no. 1 humanely helped the injured by taking him to the hospital in the police control room (PCR) van alongwith Woman Constable (W/Ct) Riya as mentioned in the Medico Legal Case Report (MLC) and the injury occurred due to the own negligent conduct of the injured. It was contended that Sh. Shivam was not present at the time of the incident and had been wrongly cited as an eye witness.
(7) In the reply on merits, it was denied that the vehicle of the respondent was coming at a high speed rather it was alleged that the accident site had slow moving, very heavy traffic and the accident purportedly took place at 11.36 AM which was peak traffic hour. The respondents took the plea that the injured Neeta Bhatia & Anr Vs. Aman Kumar & Ors MACT No. 238/2023 Page No.5 of 32 Sh. Anil Bhatia (since deceased) was crossing the road without following the rules and regulations. They alleged that the respondents have been falsely implicated in the present matter and contended that the vehicle of the respondent no. 2 was fully insured by the respondent no. 3 insurance company.
Stand of the Respondent no. 3 Insurance Company (8) The respondent no. 3 insurance company filed the computation /legal offer for settlement wherein inter-alia, it was averred that the alleged accident took place due to the sole carelessness and negligence of the injured himself and the involvement of the vehicle number DL3SEJ6892 was denied however, the factum of the aforesaid vehicle being insured for the period from 06.07.2019 to 05.07.2024 was admitted.
Framing of Issues (9) After completion of the pleadings on 07.08.2023, issues were framed in the present case.
(10) Thereafter, vide order dated 16.12.2023, consequent to the application of the petitioners U/o XIV Rule 5 CPC being allowed, an additional issue was framed in the matter and the issues were finally framed as thus -
(1) Whether injured Anil Bhatia (since deceased) received injuries in the road accident on 25.05.2021 at 11:15 AM at Shivalik Road near bus stand Malviya Nagar, New Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of bullet motorcycle bearing no. DL3SEJ-6892 being driven by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no.3 ? (OPP) (2) Whether the deceased Anil Bhatia died due to the accidental injuries ? (OPP) Neeta Bhatia & Anr Vs. Aman Kumar & Ors MACT No. 238/2023 Page No.6 of 32 (3) To what amount of compensation the LRs of the deceased are entitled and from whom ? OPP (4) Relief.
Evidence Adduced By The Parties (11) The evidence was conducted by the Learned Local Commissioner. The petitioners examined petitioner no. 1 Ms. Neeta Bhatia (wife of the injured/deceased) as PW1 and petitioner no. 2 Sh. Shivam Bhatia (son of the injured/deceased) as PW2.
(12) PW1 Ms. Neeta Bhatia exhibited her affidavit of evidence as Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the following documents:-
1. Copy of FIR bearing no. 0162/2021 dated 25.02.2021-Ex.PW1/1 (2 pages)
2. Copy of site plan showing place of accident - Ex.PW1/2.
3. Copy of MLC of Lt. Sh. Anil Bhatia bearing No. 02351 dated 25.02.2021 prepared by Madan Mohan Malaviya Hospital, New Delhi - Ex.PW1/3.
4. Copies of Medical Treatment papers from AIIMS Hospital -Ex.PW1/4 (colly) 4 pages.
5. Copy of seizure memo of bullet motorcycle bearing no. DL-3SEJ-6892 dated 25.02.2021 - Ex.PW1/5.
6. Copy of seizure memo of Driving license of Respondent No. 1 dated 25.02.2021 - Ex.PW1/6.
7. Copy of seizure memo of original RC and insurance of offending Vehicle dated 25.02.2021 - Ex.PW1/7.
8. Copy of insurance Policy of offending Vehicle Neeta Bhatia & Anr Vs. Aman Kumar & Ors MACT No. 238/2023 Page No.7 of 32 issued by Respondent No. 3 having Policy No. 2012- 200101-19-8008626-00-000 - Ex.PW1/8 (2 pages).
9. Copy of arrest Memo of Respondent No. 1 dated 25.02.2021 - Ex.PW1/9.
10. Copy of DAR Report filed by the Police -
Ex.PW1/10.
11. Copy of Death Certificate of Lt. Sh. Anil Bhatia - Ex.PW1/11.
12. Copy of Voter Card of Deceased - Mark A.
13. Copy of Aadhar Card of deponent - Mark B. (12.1) PW-1 was cross examined by Ld. counsel for the respondents.
(13) PW2 Sh. Shivam Bhatia exhibited his affidavit of evidence as Ex.PW2/A and relied on the following documents:-
1. Copy of screen shots of prescriptions and chats with doctor (Neuro surgeons) from Practo - Mark A (colly).
2. Copy of Aadhar Card - Ex.PW2/1 (OSR).
(13.1) PW-2 was cross examined by Ld. counsel for the respondents.
(14) After the petitioners closed their evidence, the respondents no. 1 and 2 led Respondents Evidence (RE) and examined the respondent no. 1 Aman Kumar as RW1 who exhibited his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.DW1/A, RW 1 relied upon the following documents.
1. Copy of MLC bearing no. 22890 prepared by Madan Mohan Malaviya Hospital, New Delhi -
Ex.DW1/B (already Ex.PW1/3 in petitioner no. 1 evidence).
Neeta Bhatia & Anr Vs. Aman Kumar & Ors MACT No. 238/2023 Page No.8 of 32
2. Copy of Aadhar Card - Ex.DW1/C (OSR).
(14.1) He was cross examined by Ld. counsel for the petitioner and Ld. counsel for the respondent no. 3/Insurance Company.
(15) The respondent no. 3 insurance company did not choose to lead any evidence.
Final Arguments (16) Upon conclusion of evidence, final arguments were advanced by Ld. counsel for all the parties. (17) Ld. counsel for the petitioners relied on the following judgments i.e. Anita Sharma and Others Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Anr (2021) 1 Supreme Court Cases 171, Meena Devi Vs. Nunu Chand Mahto@ Nemchand Mahto and Ors (2023) 1 Supreme Court Cases 204, DTC & Ors Vs Rajeshwari Shankar & Ors MACA No. 442/2005, G Suresh Vs Challapandi & Dharmaraj Augustin CMA MD No. 798/2009 and Sunita & Ors Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors Civil Appeal No. 33757 of 2018. (18) I have heard the arguments and perused the case record including the written submissions furnished and the judgments cited at Bar.
Issue Wise Analysis & Findings Issue no. 1 Whether injured Anil Bhatia (since deceased) received injuries in the road accident on 25.05.2021 at 11:15 AM at Shivalik Road near bus stand Malviya Nagar, New Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of bullet motorcycle bearing no. DL3SEJ-6892 being driven by respondent no.1, owned by Neeta Bhatia & Anr Vs. Aman Kumar & Ors MACT No. 238/2023 Page No.9 of 32 respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no.3 ? (OPP). (19) Before delving into the discussion on this issue it would be useful to highlight the principles regarding the procedure to be followed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The procedure to be so followed is similar to that followed by a civil court. In civil matters, the facts are required to be established on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities only and not beyond reasonable doubt, as is required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in civil cases is not as heavy as in a criminal case and in a claim petition under The Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the burden is even lesser than a civil case. The proceedings are in the nature of an enquiry and are not strictly adversarial as is the case in civil and criminal proceedings.
(20) Gainful reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of Hon'ble S. C. in Bimla Devi & Ors Vs Himachal Road Transport Corp. & Ors (2009) 13 SC 530 wherein it was held that it was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the petitioners and the petitioners were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. This view was reiterated by the Apex Court in the subsequent judgment of Mangla Ram Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors (2018) 5 SCC 656. (21) The aforesaid legal principles serve as a guiding lamp post for deciding the issue at hand.
(22) The respondent no. 1 does not deny being the driver of the vehicle in question on the date and time of the accident nor Neeta Bhatia & Anr Vs. Aman Kumar & Ors MACT No. 238/2023 Page No.10 of 32 does the respondent no. 2 deny being the registered owner of the vehicle. They dispute however, that the accident was caused by the respondent no. 1.
(23) Admittedly, PW1 Ms. Neeta Bhatia is not an eye witness of the accident. PW2 Sh. Shivam Bhatia deposed in his affidavit of evidence Ex.PW2/A that he was an eye witness of the accident and that his father (since deceased) was hit by the bullet motorcycle being driven by the respondent no. 1 in a very rash and negligent manner in high speed due to which father of PW2 fell down and sustained grievous head injury. (24) PW2 elaborated further in his affidavit of evidence Ex.PW2/A that on 25.02.2021, when his father was returning to Rohini, PW2 had gone to accompany him and they were going to the Bus Stop. PW2 testified vide the evidence affidavit that they had almost reached the Bus Stand when suddenly the respondent no. 1 came driving his motorcycle rashly and negligently and directly hit the father of PW2 due to which his father fell on the road and fainted. PW2 further deposed in his affidavit of evidence that he alongwith the respondent no. 1 took the father of PW2 to the hospital where the paper work was done by the respondent no. 1.
(25) In his cross examination, PW2 Sh. Shivam Bhatia stood firm to his stand of being an eye witness of the accident, denying suggestions to the contrary. PW2 Sh. Shivam Bhatia denied the suggestion that he had arrived in the hospital much later after the accident was informed by the police or public or that his father was alone at the time of accident. Another suggestion put to PW2 by Ld. counsel for the insurance company Neeta Bhatia & Anr Vs. Aman Kumar & Ors MACT No. 238/2023 Page No.11 of 32 was that the father of PW2 had sustained self-inflicted injuries due to fall without involvement of any vehicle which was also denied outright by PW2.
(26) Ld. counsel for the respondent no. 3 Insurance Company tried his best to elicit some admissions favourable to the defence of the respondents but PW2 Sh. Shivam Bhatia did not budge from, or contradict, the stand taken by him vide his evidence affidavit, denying that he was not with his father on 25.02.2021 or was at his workplace. Rather, PW2 Sh. Shivam Bhatia deposed that on 25.02.2021 he was on leave and testified in his cross-examination that he had gone to Gurgaon and thereafter to Malviya Nagar by Metro.
(27) The respondents no. 1 and 2 examined the respondent no. 1 Aman Kumar as DW1 who deposed in his affidavit of evidence Ex.DW1/A that he had been falsely implicated. He testified that the injury occurred due to the injured person's own negligent conduct and carelessness. (28) As to in what manner was the injured person, admittedly a pedestrian, careless and /or negligent, has not been elaborated anywhere by the respondents no. 1 and 2 and the abovementioned vague and bald averment has been made by the respondents without any kind of substantiation. (29) In his cross-examination, DW1 Aman Kumar denied the suggestion put to him that he had caused the accident by driving his bike rashly and negligently however the fact of the matter remains that the Investigating Agency after carrying out investigation filed the charge-sheet against the respondent no. 1 in relation to the accident in question. In his cross-examination, Neeta Bhatia & Anr Vs. Aman Kumar & Ors MACT No. 238/2023 Page No.12 of 32 DW1 Aman Kumar conceded that he had not filed any complaint against police officials for falsely implicating him. No motive for alleged false implication either by the petitioners or the police has been brought out by the respondents no. 1 and 2; it is nowhere pleaded by them that either the petitioners or the investigating officer harboured any grudge against the respondent no. 1 so as to create a false case against him. (30) In the case of Mangla Ram Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors (2018) Law Suit (SC) 303, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that filing of charge-sheet against the driver prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. In fact the Hon'ble Supreme Court went on to further observe that even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal.
(31) The presumption qua the complicity of the respondent no. 1 Aman Kumar is thus required to be raised in view of the charge-sheet being filed against him. (32) Moreover, the mechanical inspection report, copy of which is part of the charge-sheet documents, notes the fresh damages i.e. front mud guard scratched. The respondents have not bothered to give any explanation for the damage to the motorcycle as noted in the mechanical inspection report. A presumption is raised in absence of any other plausible explanation being provided, that the damage caused to the vehicle was due to its involvement in the accident, which presumption has not been rebutted by the respondents by any Neeta Bhatia & Anr Vs. Aman Kumar & Ors MACT No. 238/2023 Page No.13 of 32 cogent evidence.
(33) The respondents no. 1 and 2 could not elicit any admission from PW2 Sh. Shivam Bhatia which could favour their defence especially on the aspect of his being/ not being an eye witness of the accident in question.
(34) PW2 Sh. Shivam Bhatia was cited as an eye witness by the investigating agency as well in the charge-sheet filed against the respondent no.1. The mere fact that the name of the respondent no. 1 was mentioned in the MLC as the person accompanying the injured instead of Sh. Shivam Bhatia would not lead to any presumption that Sh. Shivam Bhatia was not accompanying the injured (since deceased), especially since in his affidavit of evidence Ex.PW2/A Sh. Shivam Bhatia has explained that he was holding his father's hand in the hospital while the paper work was got done by the respondent no. 1 and no specific suggestion to the contrary was put to him in this regard in his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the respondents.
(35) According to the respondent no. 1, he had helped in taking the injured to the hospital in the PCR alongwith W/Ct Riya. The respondent no. 1 did not choose to summon W/Ct Riya as a witness in furtherance of his plea that the only persons who accompanied the injured to the hospital were the respondent no. 1 and the lady constable.
(36) The preponderance of probabilities rather lies in favour of the petitioners and the averment that Sh. Shivam Bhatia was not an eye witness only appears to be a weak attempt to create a dent on the petitioner's version, which attempt has Neeta Bhatia & Anr Vs. Aman Kumar & Ors MACT No. 238/2023 Page No.14 of 32 miserably failed. Whether PW2 Sh. Shivam Bhatia and the respondent no. 1 took the injured to the hospital by auto or they went in the PCR is not material for deciding the present claim petition when otherwise the respondents have failed to discredit the testimony of PW1 on the aspect of his being an eye witness either through cross-examination or through some positive, cogent evidence in regard to the same.
(37) On a conspectus of the pleadings and evidence led the petitioners have been successful in establishing on a preponderance of probabilities that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing no. DL3SEJ-6892 and said vehicle was being driven by the respondent no. 1 and owned by the respondent no. 2. (38) Issue no. 1 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
Issue no. 2 Whether the deceased Anil Bhatia died due to the accidental injuries ? (OPP) (39) The onus to prove this issue was on the petitioners. (40) It is the case of the petitioners that as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident, Sh. Anil Bhatia subsequently passed away.
(41) PW1 Ms. Neeta Bhatia in her affidavit of evidence Ex.PW1/A deposed that after the accident her husband was on continuous medication and kept lying on the bed till his last breath.
(42) The accident took place on 25.02.2021 and the injured Sh. Anil Bhatia expired on 17.05.2021 i.e. almost three Neeta Bhatia & Anr Vs. Aman Kumar & Ors MACT No. 238/2023 Page No.15 of 32 months after the accident. Ld. counsel for the respondent insurance company argued and rightly so, that there should be some cogent evidence on record to establish a reasonable nexus between the injuries sustained in the accident and the death of the injured. Ld. counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2 argued additionally that in the criminal case, the offence U/s 304 A IPC of causing death due to rash and negligent act was never invoked nor sought to be invoked.
(43) Admittedly, there is no medical evidence either documentary in the form of treatment papers or in the form of testimonies of treating doctors/opinion of medical experts which could have established such a link between the injuries sustained in the accident and the subsequent death of Sh. Anil Bhatia. (44) The injured Sh. Anil Bhatia remained hospitalized from 25.02.2021 till 05.03.2021 as averred by PW1 Ms. Neeta Bhatia in her affidavit of evidence Ex.PW1/A and corroborated by the copy of the discharge summary on record i.e. Ex.PW1/4 which mentions the aforesaid period.
(45) Pertinently, Ex.PW1/4 discharge summary mentions the condition of the patient at discharge wherein it is noted that the patient was conscious and oriented and his prognosis was also good.
(46) As per the averments in the affidavit of evidence of PW1 Ms. Neeta Bhatia after he was discharged the injured Sh. Anil Bhatia (since deceased) was kept on medication and was taking OPD consultation but due to peak of covid pandemic the OPD facility in AIIMS was shut down so the family members starting taking E-consultation from Practo. The copies of screen Neeta Bhatia & Anr Vs. Aman Kumar & Ors MACT No. 238/2023 Page No.16 of 32 shots of prescriptions and chats with doctors from Practo were marked as Mark A colly. Ld. counsel for the respondents argued that the documents being marked could not be read in evidence. Ld. counsel for the petitioners on the other hand argued that in the enquiry proceedings before the MACT which are summary in nature, where strict rules of evidence do not apply the marked documents could very well be considered. He relied upon the judgment of Anita Sharma & Ors (Supra) in this regard. (47) I would tend to agree with the argument of Ld. counsel for the petitioners that even the marked documents can be considered in the present enquiry proceedings however even then, the documents Mark A (colly) being merely chats with doctors only show that the family members of the injured were consulting doctors on account of ill health of the injured Sh. Anil Bhatia; there is nothing in the documents Mark A (colly) to specifically point to the medical condition of the injured being so as a result, whether direct or indirect, of the road vehicular accident in question.
(48) Admittedly, postmortem report would have been a valuable piece of evidence to establish the nexus, if any, between the injuries sustained by Sh. Anil Bhatia in the accident and his subsequent death but concededly, the postmortem of the deceased, for whatever reasons, was not got conducted. There also does not exist any death certificate issued by the doctor which could have given an indication regarding cause of death of Sh. Anil Bhatia.
(49) It would not be out of place to mention here that Ld. counsel for the respondents contended that the chargesheet Neeta Bhatia & Anr Vs. Aman Kumar & Ors MACT No. 238/2023 Page No.17 of 32 averments note that the petitioner no. 2 informed the police during the course of investigation that his father had died due to covid. Ld. counsel for the petitioners pointed out that in the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. the petitioner no. 1 had stated that his father had expired during the covid period not that he expired due to covid.
(50) Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that there is no cogent evidence on record to link the death of the injured Sh. Anil Bhatia to the accident and injuries sustained by the injured in said accident.
(51) Lastly, it was the contention of PW1 Ms. Neeta Bhatia that there was a custom in their family to burn all the belongings of the person so no medical documents could be filed by the petitioners. No such custom has been proved by leading appropriate evidence by the petitioners. A mere bald averment in this regard would not suffice. The judgments cited by the petitioners do not come to their assistance on this issue as even on a preponderance of probabilities, they have been unsuccessful to establish this plea. The petitioners have failed to discharge the onus cast on them qua this issue which is accordingly, decided against the petitioners and in favour of the respondents.
Issue no. 3 To what amount of compensation the LRs of the deceased are entitled and from whom ? OPP (52) In view of the discussion on issues no. 1 and 2, the petitioners are entitled to compensation only on account of injuries sustained by Sh. Anil Bhatia (since deceased) in the accident and not in relation to death of Sh. Anil Bhatia as no link Neeta Bhatia & Anr Vs. Aman Kumar & Ors MACT No. 238/2023 Page No.18 of 32 between the accident and his subsequent death has been established.
(53) Now, coming to the aspect of quantum of compensation, it would be apposite to first refer to the law governing just compensation to be awarded in road vehicular accident cases, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark judgment of Raj Kumar Vs Ajay Kumar & Ors (2011) 1 SCC 343, the relevant extract of which is as under -
"General principles relating to compensation in injury cases
4. The provision of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The Court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair -
AIR 1970 SC 376, R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd.
- 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467).
5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following :
Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising :
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
Neeta Bhatia & Anr Vs. Aman Kumar & Ors MACT No. 238/2023 Page No.19 of 32 In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. Assessment of pecuniary damages under item (i) and under item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses - item (iii) -- depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages - items
(iv), (v) and (vi) -- involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decision of this Court and High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability - item (ii)(a). We are concerned with that assessment in this case. Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability.
6. 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 accidents injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (`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.
7. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the Doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, Neeta Bhatia & Anr Vs. Aman Kumar & Ors MACT No. 238/2023 Page No.20 of 32 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 expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to the whole body, cannot obviously exceed 100%.
8. 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, 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. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanently 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 terns 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 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) SCALE 298 and Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567).
9. 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 Neeta Bhatia & Anr Vs. Aman Kumar & Ors MACT No. 238/2023 Page No.21 of 32 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 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.
10. 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 ability (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. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of `loss of future earnings', if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited Neeta Bhatia & Anr Vs. Aman Kumar & Ors MACT No. 238/2023 Page No.22 of 32 award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity. It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%), the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of compensation. Be that as it may."
(54) In view of the above law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in routine injury cases, award needs to be passed only under heads of medical expenses, loss of earning during treatment period and damages for pain, suffering and trauma. In cases of serious injuries, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the claim/evidence of the claimant, award additionally needs to be passed under the heads of loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability suffered, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (including loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. The assessment of future medical expenses would depend upon specific medical evidence/advise for further treatment and costs thereof. The determination of damages on account of pain and suffering, loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life would depend upon the age of victim, nature of injury(ies)/deprivation/disability suffered by victim and the effect thereof on life of claimant. The process would involve determination/assessment of lump-sum amounts under those heads.
(55) This is a case where no permanent disability was caused. The compensation /award under different heads applicable to the present matter is being determined hereunder.
Neeta Bhatia & Anr Vs. Aman Kumar & Ors MACT No. 238/2023 Page No.23 of 32 Determination of injuries and duration of treatment (56) The copy of the MLC Report on record i.e. Ex.PW1/3 mentions about the injury being laceration over occipital region. The nature of injuries was mentioned 'pending' therein however in the copy of the chargesheet which is annexed alongwith the DAR, there is a specific averment of the Investigating Officer that the result of the MLC was obtained as per which the doctor had opined the nature of injury to be grievous so in place of Section 337 IPC pertaining to simple hurt, the IO invoked Section 338 IPC pertaining to grievous hurt. No contest to this averment in the chargesheet has been raised by the respondents, they do not dispute that the injured Sh. Anil Bhatia sustained grievous injuries.
(57) Further, as per the discharge summary Ex.PW1/4, the injured remained hospitalized from 25.02.2021 till 05.03.2021. There is no documentary evidence on record to show any further treatment period and so far as the online Practo appointments are concerned, as noted herein before, it is not established by the petitioners that the death of Sh. Anil Bhatia was a result of the injuries sustained in the motor accident and whether the consultations with the doctors on the Practo app were due to the injuries sustained in the accident or otherwise is also not brought out by the petitioners. Therefore, the documents Mark A (colly) are of no avail to the petitioners. However, the period of hospitalization i.e. 25.02.2021 till 05.03.2021 can be safely taken as the period of treatment.
Award towards Medical Expenses (58) The petitioners have only relied upon the MLC Neeta Bhatia & Anr Vs. Aman Kumar & Ors MACT No. 238/2023 Page No.24 of 32 Ex.PW1/3 and discharge summary Ex.PW1/4 (colly). No medical bills have been filed, the reason given being that as per customs the belongings (including medical papers) were burned, which custom as already observed earlier, has not been established on record. However, keeping in view the nature of injury being a head injury and grievous in nature, for treatment of which Sh. Anil Bhatia (now deceased) remained hospitalized for about 8 days, it is reasonable to presume that some expenditure must have been incurred on the hospitalization therefore a notional amount of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded towards medical expenses.
Award towards Future Treatment (59) No medical document is on record to show that Sh. Anil Bhatia was requiring further treatment after his discharge. The copies of the practo conversations of themselves do not lead to any presumption that same were in relation to the injuries sustained in the accident. Hence, no amount can be granted under this head.
Award towards Pain & Suffering, Mental & Physical Shock and Loss of Amenities of life (60) The pain and suffering, physical and mental shock and loss of amenities of life would be personal to the injured and amount if any can only be awarded to the injured and the legal representatives are not entitled for the same. As the injured has since expired, therefore no amount can be awarded under this head. See in this regard : The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Kahlon (deceased) through his Legal Representative Narinder Kahlon AIR 2021 SC 3913.
Award towards Loss of Income During Treatment Neeta Bhatia & Anr Vs. Aman Kumar & Ors MACT No. 238/2023 Page No.25 of 32 period (61) It is claimed that Sh. Anil Bhatia was working as an accountant and was having computer knowledge also. Again no documents to show that Sh. Anil Bhatia was an accountant or qualified as Chartered Accountant or documents regarding salary have been adduced in evidence by the petitioners to substantiate this claim. In absence of the same, the income of the injured Sh. Anil Bhatia (since deceased) has to be assessed as per the Minimum Wages prescribed by the State Government of NCT Delhi at the time of accident i.e. 25.02.2021. (62) Even documents pertaining to educational qualification of the injured Anil Bhatia (since deceased) have not been filed however, going by the Minimum Wages for unskilled person i.e. Rs. 15,492/- (with daily minimum wage of Rs. 416/-) at the relevant time (in February 2021), the monthly income of the injured Sh. Anil Bhatia (since deceased) has to be considered to be Rs. 15,492/- as on the date of the accident. (63) The injured was hospitalized for about 8 days so obviously he was prevented from working during said period of hospitalization which was a direct result of the accident and the consequent injuries sustained therein, hence an amount of Rs. 3,328/- (416x8) (Daily Minimum Wage x period of hospitalization) is awarded to the petitioners under this head.
Award qua special diet (64) Although no cogent evidence was adduced on the record by the petitioners regarding the expenses incurred by the injured Sh. Anil Bhatia (since deceased) on any special diet however considering the nature of injuries and duration of Neeta Bhatia & Anr Vs. Aman Kumar & Ors MACT No. 238/2023 Page No.26 of 32 hospitalization of Sh. Anil Bhatia, it is reasonable to presume that some amount must have been spent by Sh. Anil Bhatia/his family under this head. A compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards expenses incurred on special diet is hence awarded.
Award towards Attendant Charges (65) Again, there is no positive, cogent evidence adduced by the petitioners but in view of the nature of injuries sustained being grievous head injury and the period of hospitalization, I am of the opinion that some amount must have been spent by Sh. Anil Bhatia and his family members either due to hiring an attendant or requiring /asking family member to give assistance to Sh. Anil Bhatia. Hence, an amount of Rs.20,000/- is granted to the petitioners under this head.
Award qua Conveyance (66) Here also there is nothing on record to show the money spent on conveyance but considering the nature of injuries sustained by Sh. Anil Bhatia (since deceased) the Tribunal hereby awards an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the petitioners towards conveyance.
IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THIS TRIBUNAL AWARDS THE COMPENSATION AS TABULATED HEREIN BELOW : -
S.No. Heads of Compensation Amount
1. Reimbursement of medical expenses Rs.50,000/-
2. Compensation on account of future NIL
treatment
3. Loss of income during treatment Rs.3,328/-
period
4. Pain and Suffering, Mental & Physical NIL
Shock and Loss of Amenities of Life
5. Special Diet Rs.15,000/-
6. Attendant charges Rs.20,000/-
Neeta Bhatia & Anr Vs. Aman Kumar & Ors
MACT No. 238/2023 Page No.27 of 32
7. Conveyance Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.1,03,328/-
Apportionment of liability
(67) The offending vehicle was admittedly insured by the
respondent no. 3 Insurance Company. No statutory defence has been pleaded. Hence, the liability to pay the compensation falls squarely upon the respondent no. 3 Insurance Company only.
Relief -
(68) Consequent to the foregoing discussion an amount of Rs.1,03,328/- (Rupees One Lakh Three Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Eight only) is awarded to be disbursed entirely to the petitioner no. 1 with simple interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till actual realization which shall be payable by the respondent no. 3 insurance company. The petitioner no. 2 Shivam Bhatia is admittedly a major son who is working and an earning member of the family, it is nowhere stated either in the pleadings or the affidavits of evidence filed that the petitioner no. 2 was financially dependent upon Sh. Anil Bhatia (since deceased); hence no part of award amount is required to be disbursed to him and the whole amount is to be disbursed to the petitioner no. 1 Ms. Neeta Bhatia only. (69) In case the interest of petitioners was stopped or excluded during the present enquiry proceedings, same is liable to be adjusted from the total interest calculated on the Award amount. Similarly, amount awarded and released as interim award if any, during pendency of the case, be deducted from the total compensation amount.
MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO Neeta Bhatia & Anr Vs. Aman Kumar & Ors MACT No. 238/2023 Page No.28 of 32 THE CLAIMANTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE' (MCTAP)
14. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No.842/2003 titled as "Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. " has formulated MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme) vide its order dated 07.12.2018 which was made effective from 01.01.2019. The State Bank of India, Tis Hazari, Delhi is directed to disburse the amount in accordance with MACAD formulated by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Keeping in mind the guidelines laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the respondent no.03 Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs.1,03,328/- (Rupees One Lakh Three Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Eight only) with interest as stated herein above State Bank of India, Saket District Court Branch, New Delhi in the MACT SOUTH SAKET COURT A/c 42706751873 IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 in favour the petitioner no. 1 Ms. Neeta Bhatia. (70) Manager, State Bank of India, Saket District Court Branch, New Delhi is directed to release/disburse the entire amount of Rs.1,03,328/- (Rupees One Lakh Three Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Eight only) immediately to the petitioner no. 1 Ms. Neeta Bhatia in her bank account.
(71) Nazir of this Court shall prepare a separate file regarding the status of deposition/non-deposition of the award amount by the respondent no. 3 insurance company after making necessary entry on CIS immediately.
(72) A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of cost through email.
Neeta Bhatia & Anr Vs. Aman Kumar & Ors MACT No. 238/2023 Page No.29 of 32 (73) Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of award to Ld.
Judicial Magistrate First Class concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)].
(74) Ahlmad is also directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurer as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors." decided on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall also e-email an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Saket District Court Complex Branch, New Delhi for information.
(75) File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance. Separate file be prepared for compliance and be put up on 05.01.2026.
Announced in the open Court today i.e. 26th of November, 2025 (ANJANI MAHAJAN) Presiding Officer : MACT (S) Saket Courts : New Delhi 26.11.2025 Neeta Bhatia & Anr Vs. Aman Kumar & Ors MACT No. 238/2023 Page No.30 of 32 FORM-XVI SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE
1. Date of accident : 25.05.2021
2. Name of the injured : Anil Bhatia
3. Age of the injured : 63 years
4. Occupation of the injured : -
5. Income of the injured : 15,492/- per month (as per applicable minimum wages rate)
6. Nature of injury : Grievous injury
7. Medical treatment taken : Yes
8. Period of Hospitalization : 25.02.2021 till 05.03.2021
9. Whether any permanent disability ?
If yes, give details : No
10. Computation of Compensation
S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss :-
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs. 50,000/-
(ii) Expenditure on Rs. 15,000/-
conveyance
(iii) Expenditure on special Rs. 15,000/-
diet
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs. 20,000/-
(v) Loss of earning capacity NIL
(vi) Loss of Income Rs. 3,328/-
(vii) Any other loss which NIL
may require any special
treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his
life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss :-
(i) Compensation for mental NA
and physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering NA
(iii) Loss of amenities of life NA
(iv) Dis-figuration NA
(v) Loss of marriage NA
prospects
(vi) Loss of earning, NA
inconvenience,
Neeta Bhatia & Anr Vs. Aman Kumar & Ors
MACT No. 238/2023 Page No.31 of 32
hardships,
disappointment,
frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and
unhappiness in future life
etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity :-
(i) Percentage of disability -
assessed and nature of
disability as permanent
or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss -
of expectation of life
span on account of
disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of -
earning capacity in
relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income -
and earning capacity
14. TOTAL Rs.1,03,328/-
COMPENSATION
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9% per annum
16. Interest amount up to the @9% per annum
date of award
17. Total amount including to be calculated @ 9% per
interest annum
18. Award amount released Rs.1,03,328/-
19. Award amount kept in NIL
FDRs
20. Mode of disbursement of Mentioned in the award
the award amount to the
petitioner (s).
21. Next date for compliance 05.01.2026
of the award.
(ANJANI MAHAJAN)
Presiding Officer : MACT (S)
Saket Courts : New Delhi
26.11.2025
Neeta Bhatia & Anr Vs. Aman Kumar & Ors
MACT No. 238/2023 Page No.32 of 32