Delhi District Court
Jitender Sharma vs Sanjay Kumar And Anr on 16 May, 2026
MACP No. 234/21; FIR No. 68/20; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD:16.05.2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA MANCHANDA, PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MAC Petition No. 234/21
UID/CNR No. DLNT01-005507-2021
Sh. Jitender Sharma,
S/o Sh. Rameshwar Sharma,
R/o H. No. 1743/31,
Gali No. 3,
Gohana Road,
Shastri Colony,
Sonepat,
Haryana.
..........Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh. Sanjay Kumar,
S/o Sh. Mange Ram,
R/o. 106/3,
Gopal Pura,
Hisar Road,
Rohtak, Haryana.
(Driver-cum-owner)
2. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.
1001, Ground Floor,
Arya Samaj Road,
Karol Bagh,
Delhi.
(Insurer)
............Respondents
Date of Institution : 09.08.2021
Date of Arguments : 16.05.2026
Date of Award : 16.05.2026
Jitender Sharma Vs. Sanjay & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 1 of 34
MACP No. 234/21; FIR No. 68/20; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD:16.05.2026
APPEARANCES:-
Sh. Palvinder Singh, Ld. Counsel for petitioner.
Sh. Hirandra Kumar, Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for driver-cum- owner.
Sh. V.K. Gupta, Ld. Counsel for insurance company.
Petition under Section 166 and 140 of M.V. Act, 1988 for grant of compensation AWARD
1. The petitioner Jitender Sharma (aged about 42 years) has sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 80,00,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of petition till the date of realization, for the grievous injury sustained by him in Motor Vehicular Accident which occurred on 20.02.2020 at about 11:15 PM, Near Azadpur Flyover, from the side of Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, involving vehicle bearing registration no. HR46E-3094 being driven by respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner.
2. It is averred in the claim petition that on 20.02.2020, petitioner was going in vehicle bearing no. HR46E-3094 as a passenger which was being driven by its driver at a very high speed, in a rash and negligent manner. At about 11:15 PM, when they reached near Azadpur Flyover, from the side of Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, the driver of the said vehicle lost control over his vehicle, as a result of which accident in question had occurred. Due to the forceful impact, petitioner was grievously injured. He was immediately taken to BJRM Hospital. FIR No. 68/20, u/s. 279/337 IPC was registered at Jitender Sharma Vs. Sanjay & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 2 of 34 MACP No. 234/21; FIR No. 68/20; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD:16.05.2026 PS. Adarsh Nagar with regard to the said accident. The offending vehicle was found to be owned by respondent no. 1 himself and insured with respondent no. 2/Shriram General Insurance Company Limited during the period in question.
3. In his written statement, the respondent no. 1 i.e., driver-cum- owner has raised preliminary objections that there was no rash and negligent driving on his part, however, the accident occurred in order to save one stray dog who suddenly came in front of his vehicle. He claimed that he was having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. He further claimed that his vehicle was insured with respondent no. 2 at the time of accident. On merits, he has denied the averments made in the claim petition and prayed for its dismissal.
4. Respondent no. 2/insurance company had filed its legal offer, whereby it offered to pay a sum of Rs. 95,000/- as compensation towards full and final satisfaction of the claim raised by petitioner for the injury sustained by him in the accident in question. However, the said offer was not acceptable to the petitioner and the case was proceeded on merits.
5. From pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by my Ld Predecessor vide order dated 06.05.2022:-
1. Whether the injured Jitender Sharma suffered injuries in road traffic accident on 20.02.2020 at about 11:15 pm at road near Azadpur Flyover going towards Jitender Sharma Vs. Sanjay & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 3 of 34 MACP No. 234/21; FIR No. 68/20; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD:16.05.2026 Shalimar Bagh Road, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS. Adarsh Nagar due to rashness and negligence on the part of driver-cum-owner Sh. Sanjay Kumar maan who was driving Car bearing registration no. HR46E-3094, and insured with Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.?
OPP.
2. Whether the injured is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
OPP.
3. Relief.
6. To substantiate his claim, the petitioner has examined two witnesses i.e. himself as PW1 & PW2 Sh. Niranjan Kumar Singh (official from the office of employer of petitioner) and his evidence was closed vide order dated 24.08.2024. On the other hand, respondent no. 1/driver-cum- owner has examined only one witness i.e., himself as R1W1. No evidence was adduced by respondent no. 2/insurance company and RE was closed vide order dated 21.03.2025.
7. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties at length and perused the record including the pleadings of the documents, appreciated evidence led on record and examined the legal position applicable to the facts of the present case. The issue wise determination is as under:-
ISSUE NO. 18. The onus to prove the aforesaid issue was placed on the petitioner. To prove the said issue, the injured examined himself as PW1 by Jitender Sharma Vs. Sanjay & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 4 of 34 MACP No. 234/21; FIR No. 68/20; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD:16.05.2026 way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A). In his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A), injured has deposed on the lines of averments made in the claim petition. He has relied upon the following documents:-
S.No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Copy of his Aadhaar Card Ex. PW1/1(OSR)
2. His salary slip for the Ex. PW1/2
month of April 2020
3. His employee I Card Ex. PW1/3(OSR)
4. His Salary account Ex. PW1/4(colly)
statement
5. His medical bills and Ex. PW1/5(Colly)
original treatment record
6. DAR Ex. PW1/6(colly)
7. Original disability Ex. PW1/7OSR)
certificate
8. Copy of his educational Ex. PW1/8(OSR)
qualification documents
9. Copy of his termination Mark A
letter
9. During cross-examination on behalf of insurance company, he deposed that he was alone in the offending vehicle besides the driver. He further deposed that the accident took place when the driver hit the car with the divider. He further deposed that the police enquired from him on the same day at hospital but did not take his written complaint. He further deposed that the IO of the case again visited him after 3-4 days of the accident but did not Jitender Sharma Vs. Sanjay & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 5 of 34 MACP No. 234/21; FIR No. 68/20; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD:16.05.2026 take any written statement. He further deposed that he had not given any written statement to the police till date. He further deposed that the offending vehicle was Hyundai Accent Car of white colour bearing registration no. HR46-E-3094. He denied the suggestion that no such accident took place with the alleged offending vehicle or that the said vehicle has been falsely implicated in the present case in collusion with the driver and owner of the vehicle and the police officials just to claim false compensation.
10. During cross-examination on behalf of driver-cum-owner, he admitted that he had booked the vehicle of R1 through Uber. He further deposed that he did not remember the exact time when he booked the same. He denied the suggestion that it was booked at 10.04 PM. He further deposed that he could not say whether he had started his journey through the vehicle in question at 10.05 PM towards Sonepat. He further deposed that he could not say weather on the day of accident was rainy, however, the weather was not clear. He admitted that the alleged accident took place around 11.15 PM to 11.35 PM. He deposed that he could not say the distance between from the boarding of the car and place of accident. He denied the suggestion that the said distance was 35 km. He further denied the suggestion that the said distance was covered by one and half hour. He further denied the suggestion that the speed of the vehicle was in average 25 kmph. He further denied the suggestion that there was no rash and negligent driving of driver at the time of accident. He denied the suggestion that driver made a call at 100 number. He deposed that he did not remember whether he was taken to hospital in a Jitender Sharma Vs. Sanjay & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 6 of 34 MACP No. 234/21; FIR No. 68/20; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD:16.05.2026 private car with the help of driver. He further deposed that he did not remember whether the said accident had taken place as suddenly a dog came in front of vehicle.
11. It is evident from the testimony of PW1 that the respondent insurance company could not impeach his testimony through litmus test of cross-examination despite he being cross-examined at length and said witness is found to have successfully withstood the test of cross-examination. Even otherwise, PW1 himself is the injured having sustained injuries due to the accident in question. Copy of said FIR (which is part of DAR), would show that same was registered on 21.02.2020 on the basis of GD No. 059A with regard to accident call received in PS. Adarsh Nagar on the date of accident itself i.e., 20.02.2020. Furthermore, said FIR is shown to have been registered on 21.02.2020(accident being caused on 20.02.2020 at about 11:15 PM). Thus, there is no possibility of false implication of driver and owner and / or false involvement of offending vehicle at the instance of the petitioners.
12. On the other hand, respondent no.1/R1W1 has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.R1W1/A that there was no rash and negligent driving on his part, however, accident was caused in order to save one stray dog who suddenly came in front of his vehicle. He further deposed that alleged offending vehicle was insured with respondent no. 2 at the time of accident. He has relied upon copy of RC of alleged offending vehicle and exhibited the same as Ex. R1W1/1. He has relied upon copy of insurance Jitender Sharma Vs. Sanjay & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 7 of 34 MACP No. 234/21; FIR No. 68/20; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD:16.05.2026 policy of alleged offending vehicle and marked the same as Mark A. He further deposed that he was having valid driving licence at the time of accident and marked the same as Mark B. He has relied upon copy of permit-cum-authorization certificate of alleged offending vehicle and exhibited the same as Ex. R1W1/2. He has relied upon copy of trip details and marked the same as Mark C and copy of pollution certificate and marked the same as Mark D. During his cross-examination on behalf of insurance company, he deposed that injured was not known to him prior to the accident. He volunteered that he was passenger in his car. He denied the suggestion that no accident took place involving the alleged offending vehicle or that he was admitting the involvement of aforesaid vehicle in the accident just to favour the injure in the present claim. During his cross-examination on behalf of petitioner, he admitted that no other vehicle except the offending vehicle was involved in the present accident in question.
13. Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 1 vehemently argued that the petitioner has failed to prove negligence on the part of respondent no. 1 in causing the accident. For this purpose, he heavily relied upon the testimony of R1W1 as discussed above. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for petitioner argued that the testimony of R1W1 should not be believed as he himself was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident. He further submitted that FIR was registered against respondent no. 1.
Jitender Sharma Vs. Sanjay & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 8 of 34MACP No. 234/21; FIR No. 68/20; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD:16.05.2026
14. It may be noted that respondent no. 1 i.e. R1W1 has simply deposed that there was no negligence on his part and the accident occurred in the process of saving of one stray dog who suddenly came in front of his vehicle but his testimony does not inspire confidence at all as FIR No. 68/20 u/s 279/338 IPC was registered at PS. Adarsh Nagar with regard to accident in question. Thus, there is no possibility of any false implication of driver of offending vehicle in this case. The contents of said FIR would show that petitioner has disclosed the same sequence of facts in his evidence as PW1 leading to the accident as deposed by him during the course of inquiry. It is quite obvious that respondent no. 1/R1W1 has taken the aforesaid plea in order to escape from the penal consequences as criminal case is pending trial against him for causing the accident.
15. The facts of the case, arguments of the Ld. Counsels, evidence, material on record and duly verified documents of the criminal case, have been carefully examined and scrutinized. Respondent no. 1 namely Sh. Sanjay Kumar has been charge sheeted for offences punishable U/s. 279/338 IPC by the investigating agency after arriving at the conclusion on the basis of investigation carried out by it that the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle.
16. It is relevant to mention here that copy of MLC (which is part of DAR) of petitioner filed would show that he was taken to BJRM Hospital, Delhi with alleged history of RTA on the date of accident itself i.e., on Jitender Sharma Vs. Sanjay & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 9 of 34 MACP No. 234/21; FIR No. 68/20; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD:16.05.2026 20.02.2020 at about 11:42 PM. On his local examination, he was found to have sustained multiple injuries as mentioned therein. The said injuries are consistent with the injuries which are sustained in motor vehicular accident. Again, there is no challenge to the said document from the side of respondents including insurance company.
17. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the petitioner has been able to prove his case on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, that he sustained injuries in road accident which took place on 20.02.2020 at about 11:15 PM, Near Azadpur Flyover, from the side of Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent no. 1. Thus, issue no. 1 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 218. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 enjoins upon the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable.
19. The guiding principles for assessment of "just and reasonable compensation" in injury cases has been laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in III (2007), ACC 676 titled as Oriental Insurance Co,. Ltd., Vs. Vijay Kumar Mittal & Ors that: -
Jitender Sharma Vs. Sanjay & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 10 of 34MACP No. 234/21; FIR No. 68/20; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD:16.05.2026 " The possession of one's own body is the first and most valuable all human rights and while awarding compensation for bodily injuries this primary element is to be kept in mind. Bodily injury is to be treated and varies on account of gravity of bodily injury. Though it is impossible to equate money with human suffering, agony and personal deprivation, the Court and Tribunal should make an honest and serious attempt to award damages so far as money can compensate the loss. Regard must be given to the gravity and degree of deprivation as well as the degree of awareness of the deprivation. Damages awarded in personal injury cases must be substantial and not token damages".
20. It has been further held by the Hon'ble High Court that:
"the general principle which should govern the assessment of damages in persons injury cases is that the Court should award to injured persons such a sum as will put him in the same position as he would have been in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained injuries".
21. The Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to consider the legal position for grant of reasonable and fair compensation and has laid down the binding guidelines that " the compensation should be just and is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly or a pittance". Reliance is placed on 2012 (8) SLT 676 titled K. Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The golden principles for assessment of adequate compensation to victims of road accident have been appreciated by the Full Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in 2017 (13) SCALE 12 : 2017 XI AD (SC) 113 titled National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., wherein it has been held:-
Jitender Sharma Vs. Sanjay & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 11 of 34MACP No. 234/21; FIR No. 68/20; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD:16.05.2026 ".....The Tribunal and the Courts have to bear in mind that the basic principle lies in pragmatic computation which is in proximity to reality. It is a well expected norm that money can not substitute a life lost but an effort has to be made for grant of just compensation having uniformity of approach. There has to be a balance between the two extremes, that is, a windfall and the pittance, a bonanza and the modicum....."
22. Accordingly, the entitlement of injured/victim to just compensation is being assessed in the background of well settled parameters and guidelines as hereinbelow.
MEDICAL EXPENSES
23. Petitioner in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A has deposed that after the accident, he was taken to BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi and thereafter, he was shifted to Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi where he remained admitted from 21.02.2020 and was discharged on 03.03.2020. He further deposed that during the aforesaid hospitalization, his neuro and spine surgery were conducted. He further deposed that after the discharge from the aforesaid hospital, he was taking further treatment as an outdoor patient from the said hospital as well as from other private doctors. He further deposed that he had spent more than about Rs. 5,50,056/- on his treatment. He has relied upon medical bills and original treatment record exhibited as Ex. PW1/5(colly). During his cross-examination on behalf of insurance company, he deposed that he had received Rs. 5 lakhs under the group insurance policy but he could not specify under which head said Jitender Sharma Vs. Sanjay & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 12 of 34 MACP No. 234/21; FIR No. 68/20; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD:16.05.2026 amount was given to him. He further deposed that he did not submit any medical bill under the said group mediclaim policy. He further deposed that he was not paying any insurance premium for the said group insurance policy. He denied the suggestion that he did not incur any amount on his treatment or that medical bills and other documents filed on record were false and fabricated. He further denied the suggestion that he had deliberately not filed any document regarding Rs. 5 Lakhs given by the employer to him towards group insurance policy as he had received much more amount than that. He further denied the suggestion that all his medical bills has been reimbursed by the company under the group insurance policy.
24. It is relevant to note that the injured has relied upon medical bills amounting to Rs. 5,95,656/- and medical bills chart. During cross- examination by Ld. Counsel for insurance company, injured admitted that he had received Rs. 5 lakhs under the group insurance policy but he could not specify under which head said amount was given to him. He also deposed that he was not paying any insurance premium for the said group insurance policy. During the course of arguments Ld. Counsel for petitioner also fairly conceded that an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was received by the petitioner under the group insurance policy from his employer. Even otherwise, PW2 who was the official from the office of employer of deceased has deposed during his cross-examination on behalf of insurance company that the employee was covered under Group Mediclaim Policy from their company. He further deposed that he did not know the terms and condition of the said Jitender Sharma Vs. Sanjay & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 13 of 34 MACP No. 234/21; FIR No. 68/20; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD:16.05.2026 policy and he had not brought the said policy. He further deposed that the petitioner had preferred a claim under the said policy and employee was given an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs towards the medical expenses/hospitalization qua the present accident.
25. Ld. Counsel for insurance company vehemently argued that petitioner is also entitled for the aforesaid amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- granted by his employer under the group insurance policy taken by his employer. He has placed reliance upon recently passed case titled as "New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Dolly Satish Gandhi & Anr.", SLP ( C) Nos. 18267 of 2025, decided on 15.05.2026 by Hon'ble Apex Court. However, the said decision is distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the present case inasmuchas in the said case, the victim was himself paying the premium of his medi-claim policy which was purchased by him, accounting for the uncertainties of life and preparing a financial base for an unfortunate possible eventuality. However, in the case in hand, the amount of medical expenses incurred by the victim was paid by his employer under the group insurance policy for which he had paid no premium as per his own testimony. Therefore, victim can not be held entitled for the amount already paid by his employer under the group insurance policy for the medical expenses.
26. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the fact that since the petitioner had already received a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs from his employer for the expenses incurred by him on his medical treatment after the accident, he Jitender Sharma Vs. Sanjay & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 14 of 34 MACP No. 234/21; FIR No. 68/20; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD:16.05.2026 can not be granted the said amount again under this head and he is only entitled for the remaining amount which was incurred by him on his treatment. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 95,656/- (Rs. 5,95,656/- minus Rs. 5,00,000/-) is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
PAIN AND SUFFERING
27. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter titled as " Vinod Kumar Bitoo Vs. Roshni & Ors." passed in appeal bearing no. MAC.APP 518/2010 decided on 05.07.12, has held as under:-
" It is difficult to measure the pain and suffering in terms of money which is suffered by a victim on account of serious injuries caused to him in a motor vehicle accident. Since the compensation is required to be paid for pain and suffering an attempt must be made to award compensation which may have some objective relation with the pain and suffering underwent by the victim. For this purpose, the Claims Tribunal and the Courts normally consider the nature of injury; the part of the body where the injuries were sustained, surgeries, if any, underwent by the victim, confinement in the hospital and the duration of treatment".
28. Injured himself as PW1 has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit(Ex PW1/A) that he has suffered grievous injuries and 90% permanent disability in relation to his all four limbs and spine due to the accident in question. Thus, he would have undergone great physical sufferings and mental shock on account of the accident in question. Keeping in view the medical treatment record of petitioner available on record and the Jitender Sharma Vs. Sanjay & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 15 of 34 MACP No. 234/21; FIR No. 68/20; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD:16.05.2026 nature of injuries suffered by him including permanent disability to the extent of 90% in relation to all four limbs and spine suffered by him, I hereby award a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner.
LOSS OF GENERAL AMENITIES & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE
29. As already mentioned above, there is sufficient evidence on record to establish that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries in the accident. His treatment record would also show that he had suffered grievous injuries and 90% permanent disability in relation to his all four limbs and spine due to the accident in question. Thus, he would not be able to enjoy general amenities of life after the accident in question, during rest of his life and his quality of life has been definitely affected. In view of the nature of injuries including permanent disability suffered by him, his continued treatment for considerable period, I award a notional sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- towards loss of general amenities and enjoyment of life to the petitioner.
CONVEYANCE & SPECIAL DIET
30. During course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for petitioner argued that petitioner has spent considerable amount on special diet and conveyance. The petitioner has failed to lead any cogent evidence on record in respect of amount incurred by her under the aforesaid heads. At the same time, it cannot be overlooked that he had sustained grievous injuries in the accident in Jitender Sharma Vs. Sanjay & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 16 of 34 MACP No. 234/21; FIR No. 68/20; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD:16.05.2026 question. Apart from this, the petitioner is also shown to have sustained permanent disability to the extent of 90% in relation to all four limbs and spine. Thus, he would have taken special rich protein diet for his speedy recovery and would have also incurred considerable amount towards conveyance charges while commuting to the concerned hospital as OPD patient for his regular check up & follow up during the period of his medical treatment. In these facts and circumstances, I hereby award a sum of Rs. 50,000/-each for conveyance charges and special diet.
LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY
31. As already stated above, the petitioner is shown to have sustained 90% permanent disability in relation to his all four limbs and spine. Same is quite evident from Disability Certificate of Medical Board of SRHC Hospital, Narela, Delhi. The petitioner has also testified in this regard while examining himself as PW1 during inquiry.
32. The medical treatment record i.e., Discharge Summary (which is part of Ex. PW1/5 colly) of Fortis Hospital in respect of petitioner/injured, would reveal that he was admitted in the said hospital on 21.02.2020 and was discharged on 03.03.2020. As per the said record, the case of petitioner waas of post traumatic cord edema with C4 fractured body with C4 Laminar fracture with extruded 4-5 Pivd with Canal stenosis and splenic contusions with hemoperitoneum with minimal left pleural effusion. It is seen that C4 Jitender Sharma Vs. Sanjay & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 17 of 34 MACP No. 234/21; FIR No. 68/20; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD:16.05.2026 partial corpectomy with C4-5 microdisectomy with fusion-apex-titanium peek cage with ACP C3-C5 due to partial corpectomy done under GA on 21.01.2020. Apart from this, the petitioner is also shown to have sustained permanent disability to the extent of 90% in relation to all four limbs and spine. It is argued on behalf of petitioner that since the petitioner has suffered permanent disability in relation to all four limbs and spine, due to which he was terminated by his employer and thus, he had suffered 100% loss of income. Here it be noted that the petitioner has suffered 90% permanent disability in relation to his all four limbs and spine and his case was of cervical spine injury with quadriperesis with fracture tibia left.
33. It is argued on behalf of petitioner that petitioner was working as Business Head at India Exposition Mart Limited and was getting handsome salary of Rs. 2,00,000/- at the time of accident. It is further argued that since the petitioner has suffered disability to the extent of 90% in relation to his all four limbs and spine, he is unable to do any work from the date of accident as his avocation involves proper movement of his all limbs and due to aforesaid disability, he can not ride any vehicle and thus, the loss of earning capacity be taken as 100%.
34. Per contra, it is argued on behalf of insurance company that the disability of the petitioner is not that much extent which could amount to 100% loss of earning capacity.
Jitender Sharma Vs. Sanjay & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 18 of 34MACP No. 234/21; FIR No. 68/20; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD:16.05.2026
35. With regard to assessment of functional disability in the accident cases, I am guided by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., CIVIL APPEAL NO.8981 OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10383 of 2007) wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to held as under:
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 Jitender Sharma Vs. Sanjay & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 19 of 34 MACP No. 234/21; FIR No. 68/20; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD:16.05.2026 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 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".
36. Now coming back to the facts of present case it is noted that the petitioner was stated to be working as Business Head in a private limited company and he has suffered 90% permanent disability in relation to his all four limbs and spine. It is apparent from the disability certificate (Ex. PW1/7) that the disability of the petitioner is permanent in nature and same is not likely to improve. It is pertinent to mention here that any type of work requires physical dexterity in limbs and ability to continually walk, Jitender Sharma Vs. Sanjay & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 20 of 34 MACP No. 234/21; FIR No. 68/20; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD:16.05.2026 stand, climb, stoop, bend, kneel, reach in all directions, etc. It may be noted here that petitioner is a qualified person who was working as a business head at the time of accident and it is quite obvious that for any vocation, proper movement of all lower limbs are very necessary which is not possible in the case of petitioner due to the aforesaid disability suffered by him in the accident. The petitioner has suffered 90% permanent physical impairment in relation to his all four limbs and spine which is going to adversely affect his avocation. In view of case (supra), I am of the considered opinion that due to disability suffered(permanent physical impairment in relation to his right lower limb) in the present accident, the petitioner will suffer 100% loss of earning capacity. Hence, the functional disability of the petitioner is considered as 100% towards loss of earning capacity.
37. The petitioner has categorically deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit(Ex PW1/A) that he was working as Business Head at India Exposition Mart Limited at Greater Noida, UP and was getting monthly salary of Rs. 2,00,000/- at the time of accident. He further deposed that since he remained under continuous treatment after the accident, he could not join his job and due to which, he got terminated by his employer. He further deposed that he had also suffered permanent disability to the the extent of 90% due to the injuries received by him in the accident in question. During cross-examination on behalf of insurance company, PW1 deposed that he had joined India Exposition Mart Ltd w.e.f., 02.12.2019. He further deposed that earlier he was in other organization where he worked till September 2019 in Jitender Sharma Vs. Sanjay & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 21 of 34 MACP No. 234/21; FIR No. 68/20; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD:16.05.2026 MESSE India as a Executive Director. He further deposed that the work of India Exposition Mart Ltd was basically to organize exhibition, trade fair and events. He further deposed that he has done Masters in Tourism Management. He further deposed that he had been filing his income tax returns since 2004-
05. He further deposed that he had not filed any income tax return. He further deposed that he could not give any reason as to why he had not filed any income tax return on record. He further deposed that he had filed his income tax return upto date. He volunteered that he had filed zero return after the accident. He further deposed that he used to get his salary through his bank account. He further deposed that he had not filed on record his bank account statement to show that he had received any such salary from the company. On being specifically asked by the counsel for insurance company that why there was a difference of amount in the salary slip for the month of January 2020 whereby net salary comes to Rs. 1,65,839/- while as per the bank statement Ex. PW1/4, the amount of Rs. 1,59,445/-had been received as salary for the said period, he deposed that he could not clarify the same. He deposed that the salary slip were prepared under the supervision of HR head of the company. He produced his ITRs for the Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2023- 24 and marked the copies of the same as Mark A(Colly). He denied the suggestion that false and fabricated documents and salary slip have been prepared to claim false compensation in the present case or that due to which the salary slip did not match with the bank statement. He deposed that he had worked in MESSE India for about an year. He further deposed that he did not remember the exact date of joining. He further deposed that he was getting Jitender Sharma Vs. Sanjay & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 22 of 34 MACP No. 234/21; FIR No. 68/20; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD:16.05.2026 package of Rs. 8 lakhs per annum. He further deposed that prior to MESSE India, he was working in MESSE Dusseldorf wherein he was Director Project. He further deposed that he had worked in the said company for about two years and he was given Rs. 24 lakhs per annum approximately. He further deposed that he was unable to work on the computer as of now due to the injuries in the accident. He admitted that he had not filed any papers qua his previous employment. He denied the suggestion that he was not employed with any company as aforesaid. He denied the suggestion that the ITRs filed by him were forged and fabricated. He denied the suggestion that he had not suffered any permanent disability or any loss of earning capacity due to the accident. He deposed that the special allowance as reflected in the salary slip was taxable and he was not aware on what basis the company had categorized the special allowance. During his cross-examination on behalf of driver-cum- owner, he admitted that the alleged salary of Rs. 2 lakhs was not mentioned on document Ex. PW1/2. He volunteered that Rs. 1,98,200/-had been mentioned. He further admitted that he had not challanged anywhere the termination of his job from the company India Exposition Mart Ltd. He further admitted that he had not filed income tax return in the present case. He volunteered that he had brought the same on that day.
38. In order to prove the employment and income of deceased, petitioner has examined PW2 Sh. Niranjan Kumar Singh (official from the office of employer of petitioner). PW2 has produced the appointment letter of the injured Jitender Kumar and exhibited the same as Ex.PW2/2 (colly, Jitender Sharma Vs. Sanjay & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 23 of 34 MACP No. 234/21; FIR No. 68/20; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD:16.05.2026 running into 4 pages), Form-16 exhibited as Ex.PW2/3 (colly, running into 5 pages), attendance sheet exhibited as Ex.PW2/4 (colly, running into 4 pages), salary slips exhibited as Ex.PW2/5 (colly, running into 4 pages), Employee Provident Fund exhibited as Ex.PW2/6 (colly, running into 6 pages) and details of the bank accounts as per their company exhibited as Ex.PW2/7. He further deposed that the employee Jitender has joined their company on 2nd December, 2019 as a business head. He further deposed that Jitender Sharma was their permanent employee. He further deposed that he was only on the probation for a six months initially after joining the company and thereafter, he was permanent employee as per their appointment letter. He further deposed that as per their company rules, the retirement age was 58 years. He further deposed that in their company, the increment chances depends upon the performance of the employee. He further deposed that the income of the injured would be increased, if he had not injured in the said accident. During his cross-examination on behalf of driver-cum-owner, he deposed that he was working in the said company since 1st April, 2013. He further deposed that injured Jitender was alone head of the department SBU. He further deposed that he was aware about the facilities and benefits to the employee of the said company. He further deposed that in their company, there was medical facility to the injured employees. He further deposed that injured Jitender had informed their company regarding accident by next four hours of the incident. During his cross-examination on behalf of insurance company, he deposed that the petitioner was under the probation period with India Exposition Mart Ltd. He further deposed that he had not brought any receipt Jitender Sharma Vs. Sanjay & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 24 of 34 MACP No. 234/21; FIR No. 68/20; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD:16.05.2026 of deposit of TDS deducted from the salary of the injured. He further deposed that the petitioner had been paid complete salary without any deduction from his entitlement upto the period of April 2020. He further deposed that he had not brought any bank statement of the company to show that the salary of the petitioner had been paid and credited in the account of the petitioner. He further deposed that the salary to the petitioner was paid through his bank account. On being specifically asked whether it is correct that the attendance sheet filed by him did not bear either the signature of the employee or any person on behalf of the company, he deposed that the attendance sheet represents the biometric attendance of the employees which had been attested by him. He admitted that nowhere on the attendance sheet, it was mentioned that the attendance sheet represents the biometric attendance of the employee. He deposed that he had not brought any certificate to show that the attendance report was in respect of biometric attendance. He further deposed that special allowance as mentioned in the salary slip was taxable and was fixed amount given to all the employees. He further deposed that except the salary upto the period of April 2020, no other amount has been paid to the petitioner. He volunteered that on humanitarian grounds salary was given. He further deposed that the company had not terminated the petitioner. He further deposed that the petitioner had stopped coming to the office whereafter he was removed from the rolls of their company. He denied the suggestion that he had not brought the mediclaim policy intentionally and deliberately. He deposed that their company had not given any other amount except as stated above to the petitioner. He denied Jitender Sharma Vs. Sanjay & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 25 of 34 MACP No. 234/21; FIR No. 68/20; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD:16.05.2026 the suggestion that the petitioner was not employed with the India Exposition Mart Ltd or that he was not getting any such salary. He further denied the suggestion that the documents filed by him on records were false and fabricated or that the same did not match with the record as maintained with the computer. He deposed that he can not admit or deny the suggestion that the injured had not suffered any loss of earning capacity due to the accident.
39. After referring to the testimonies of witnesses PW1 & PW2 and the documents filed by the said witnesses, Ld. counsel for petitioner vehemently argued that monthly salary of deceased may be taken as Rs. 2,00,000/- as per the documents produced by said witnesses in order to calculate the loss of earning capacity.
40. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the insurance company argued that there is no concrete evidence led by petitioner to establish his monthly income at the time of accident. Thus, loss of earning capacity should be calculated on the basis of notional income as per Minimum Wages Act applicable during the relevant period.
41. As per the document i.e. Appointment Letter (which is part of Ex. PW2/2 colly), petitioner was working with India Exposition Mart Limited as Business Head at the monthly CTC of Rs. 2,00,000/- at the time of accident. The document i.e. copy of bank account statement of petitioner/injured (Ex. PW1/4 colly) relied upon by the petitioner shows that an amount of Rs. 1,69,006/-, Rs. 1,59,445/- and Rs. 1,53,259/- was credited Jitender Sharma Vs. Sanjay & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 26 of 34 MACP No. 234/21; FIR No. 68/20; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD:16.05.2026 in his bank account in the months January to March, 2020 respectively by India Exposition Mart Limited as salary. It is relevant to mention here that as per the testimony of PW2 Sh. Niranjan Kumar Singh, DGM, HR Manager, India Exposition Mart Limited, petitioner Jitender had joined their company on 02.12.2019 as a Business Head and he was their permanent employee. He has produced the salary slips (Ex. PW2/5 colly) of petitioner for the months of January to April, 2020. As per the salary slip of petitioner for the month January 2020, the gross salary of petitioner was Rs. 1,98,200/- excluding the amount of Rs. 1800/- which was mentioned as PF in the said salary slip. It is relevant to mention here that PF is also part of salary of petitioner and thus, it can be safely presumed that petitioner was working with India Exposition Mart Limited @ monthly salary of Rs. 2,00,000/- at the time of accident as the date of accident in the present matter is 20.02.2020. Furthermore, respondents have failed to lead any evidence questioning the genuineness of the said documents. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I deem it fit to accept the monthly salary of deceased as Rs. 2,00,000/- per month as on the date of accident.
42. The employment and income of deceased has been duly proved by PW-2 Sh. Niranjan Kumar Singh. No evidence to the contrary has been adduced by respondents. As per the testimony of PW2, petitioner was permanent employee of their company. He further deposed that petitioner was only on the probation for a six months initially after joining the company and thereafter, he was permanent employee as per their appointment letter. It may Jitender Sharma Vs. Sanjay & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 27 of 34 MACP No. 234/21; FIR No. 68/20; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD:16.05.2026 be relevant to mention here that though, the petitioner was on probation period of six months initially after joining the company but it can not be denied that had he been not met with an accident, he would have been working in the said company and there was every chances for him to get permanent after competition of his probation period. Even otherwise, PW2 has deposed that petitioner was their permanent employee. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it can be safely presumed that petitioner was permanent employee of India Exposition Mart Ltd at the time of accident. (Reliance placed on judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled K.S. Muralidhar Vs. R. Subbulakshmi & Anr., SLP( C ) No. 18337/2021, dated 22.11.2024).
43. In the copy of Aadhaar Card of the petitioner, his year of birth is mentioned as 1978. Further, in the PAN Card of the petitioner, his date of birth is mentioned as 21.10.1978. The date of accident is 20.02.2020. In view of said document, his age was about 42 years as on the date of accident. Hence, the appropriate multiplier would be 14 in view of pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.", passed in SLP(Civil) No. 25590/14 decided on 31.10.17. Considering the fact that petitioner was aged about 42 years at the time of accident and the fact that he was having permanent job as discussed above, future prospects @ 30% has to be awarded in favour of petitioner in view of pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd.
Jitender Sharma Vs. Sanjay & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 28 of 34MACP No. 234/21; FIR No. 68/20; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD:16.05.2026 Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." mentioned supra, as well as in view of recent decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal bearing MAC APP No. 798/2011 titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", decided on 02.11.17. The monthly notional income of petitioner has been taken as Rs. 2,00,000/- per month as discussed above. Thus, the loss of monthly income from the date of accident would be Rs. 2,00,000/-(100%). The total loss of earning would be Rs. 4,36,80,000/- (Rs. 2,00,000/- x130/100x12x14). Thus, a sum of Rs.4,36,80,000/- is awarded in favour of petitioner under this head.
ATTENDANT CHARGES
44. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for petitioner argued that due to the injuries and permanent disability suffered by the petitioner, he would have to depend upon the services of the attendant throughout his remaining life.
45. It is apparent from record that petitioner has suffered grievous injuries in the accident. Apart from the injuries, he has also suffered permanent disability to the extent of 90% in relation to his all four limbs and spine. Looking at the medical treatment and disability of the petitioner, notice can be taken of the fact that since the petitioner has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 90% in relation to his all four limbs and spine, there is requirement of attendant during his whole life as he might not be able to Jitender Sharma Vs. Sanjay & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 29 of 34 MACP No. 234/21; FIR No. 68/20; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD:16.05.2026 lead normal life as he was leading before the accident and he would require escort of a person during his whole life till he is alive. Notice can also be taken of the fact that he would have been definitely helped by some person either outsider or from his family, to perform his daily activities as also while visiting the hospital during the course of his medical treatment. Since the petitioner has suffered 90% permanent disability in relation to his all four limbs, which has been considered as 100% with respect to loss of earning capacity(as discussed above), he will require assistance of an attendant throughout his life.
46. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled as " Pritam Singh Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors." (supra) has been pleased to held that in a case where the claimant has been rendered permanently disabled to the extent of 100%, he would definitely require consistent presence of attendant throughout his life. It was further held that in such circumstances, the proper course would be to take care of attendant charges incurred during the treatment as well as for future on the assumption that injured would need to engage an attendant on regular basis. It was also held that the expenditure towards this end, could be computed on the basis of minimum wages of an unskilled worker prevalent as on the date of accident and to adopt the multiplier as per the age of injured at that time.
47. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as " Abhimanyu Pratap Singh Vs. Namita Sekhon & Anr.", Civil Appeal No. 4648 of 2022, decided Jitender Sharma Vs. Sanjay & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 30 of 34 MACP No. 234/21; FIR No. 68/20; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD:16.05.2026 on 06.07.2022 has been pleased to hold in para no. 14 that in a case where the claimant has been rendered permanently disabled to the extent of 100%, it would not be justified to grant compensation of future loss as well as earning only for 10 years and attendant charges only for 20 years. In fact, the said amount should be determined applying the multiplier method.
48. Turning back to the facts of the present case, the minimum wages of an unskilled worker as on the date of accident which is 20.02.2020, were Rs. 14,842/- per month. The age of injured was around 42 years as on the date of accident and multiplier of 14 is applicable. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 24,93,456/- (Rs. 14,842/- X 12 X 14) is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:-
1. Medical Expenses Rs. 95,656/-
2. Pain and suffering Rs. 3,00,000/-
3. Loss of general amenities and Rs. 2,50,000/- enjoyment of life
4. Conveyance & Special diet Rs. 1,00,000/-
5. Loss of earning capacity Rs. 4,36,80,000/-
6. Attendant Charges Rs. 24,93,456/-
Total Rs. 4,69,19,112/-
Rounded off to Rs. 4,69,19,000/-
Jitender Sharma Vs. Sanjay & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 31 of 34
MACP No. 234/21; FIR No. 68/20; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD:16.05.2026
49. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. Respondent no.
2/insurance company did not adduce any evidence as it had no statutory defence. Rather, insurance company had filed its legal offer which was not acceptable to the petitioner. It is nowhere the case of insurance company that any term or condition of insurance policy was breached/violated by insured. Keeping in view the existence of valid insurance policy, respondent no. 2/insurance company becomes liable to pay the compensation amount, as insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured. Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO.3/RELIEF
50. In view of my findings on issues no. 1 and 2, a compensation of Rs. 4,69,19,000/- (including interim award amount, if any) alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum w.e.f date of filing the claim petition i.e., 11.08.2021 till the date of its realization, in favour of petitioner and against the respondents. (Reliance placed on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Baby Raksha & Ors, MAC APP. No. 36/2023 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 21.04.2023).
APPORTIONMENT
51. Statement of petitioner in terms of Clause 29 MCTAP was recorded on 09.01.2025. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case and the fact that petitioner has suffered 90% permanent Jitender Sharma Vs. Sanjay & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 32 of 34 MACP No. 234/21; FIR No. 68/20; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD:16.05.2026 disability in relation to his all four limbs and spine, I deem it appropriate to release a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only) immediately to the petitioner through his saving bank and remaining amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 1,00,000/- each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest. The said FDRs be released to the said petitioner on the monthly basis as aforesaid.
52. Petitioner is directed to provide details of his saving bank account to the insurance company within 7 days against proper acknowledgment from the date of award for transfer of aforesaid amount in his bank account.
53. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., being insurer of the offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the aforesaid award amount in the bank account of the claimant within 30 days from the date when details are provided by the claimant as aforesaid, failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a for the period of delay in terms of directions passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in its latest judgment titled "Parminder Singh Vs. Honey Goyal & Ors.", S.L.P. (C) No. 4484 OF 2020, DOD:18.03.2025.
54. Concerned Manager of petitioner's bank is directed to release the amount to the petitioner as aforesaid, on completing necessary formalities as per rules. He is further directed to keep the remaining amount in fixed Jitender Sharma Vs. Sanjay & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 33 of 34 MACP No. 234/21; FIR No. 68/20; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD:16.05.2026 deposit, if any, in terms of aforesaid directions and send compliance report to this Court. He is also directed to ensure that no loan, advance or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court. Copy of the award be given dasti to the petitioner and also to counsel for the insurance company for compliance. Petitioner is also directed to provide copy of this award to his bank Manager for compliance. Form XVI & Form XVII in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A. Copy of order be also sent to concerned CJM/JMFC and DLSA as per clause 31 and 32 of MCTAP. Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA MANCHANDA MANCHANDA Date:
Announced in the open 2026.05.16
16:02:31 +0530
Court on 16.05.2026
(RICHA MANCHANDA)
Judge MACT-2 (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
Jitender Sharma Vs. Sanjay & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 34 of 34