Delhi District Court
Aafrin(Dar) vs Saieem(348/17Slc) on 2 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHELLY ARORA
DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
PO MACT (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No. 410/2025
FIR No.348/2017
PS : SLC
U/s 279/337/304AIPC
CNR NO. DLSE01-004653-2025
Afreen Vs. Shaieem & Ors.
Afreen @ Amreen @ Amrin
D/o Sh. Majid
R/o H. No. T-22, Chand Biwi Camp
Sarai Kale Khan, Delhi.
.....Claimant
Versus
1. Shaieem
S/o Jamil
R/o Village Ratol, PS Khekra,
Distt. Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh
(Driver of Truck/ Trailor bearing Reg. No. UP 17T 9989)
2. Lalit Khanduja
S/o Mukund Lal
R/o B/387, Shastri Nagar
MACT No.410/2025 Afreen Vs. Saieem & Ors. page 1 of 38
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.
(Owner of Truck/ Trailor bearing Reg. No. UP 17T 9989)
3. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road,
New Delhi-110002
(Insurer of Truck/ Trailor bearing Reg. No. UP 17T 9989)
Respondents
Date of accident : 13.09.2017
Date of filing of DAR : 17.11.2017
Date of Decision : 02.06.2025
AWARD
1. DAR
1(a). Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred as DAR)
was filed by ASI Onkar Singh on 17.11.2017 which is being treated as Claim Petition under Section 166 (1) read with Section 166 (4) MV Act. It pertains to alleged accident of victim Afreen (hereinafter referred as injured), by Vehicle no. UP 17T 9989 (hereinafter referred as offending vehicle), driven by Sh. Shaeem (hereinafter referred as R-1), owned by Sh. Lalit Khanduja (hereinafter referred as R-2), and insured with M/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd (hereinafter referred as R-3).
2. Brief Facts:
2(a) Preliminary information regarding accident in question was received at PS Sun Light Colony recorded vide DD no. 3PP MACT No.410/2025 Afreen Vs. Saieem & Ors. page 2 of 38 & 04 PP, dated 13.09.2017, upon receipt of which, IO SI Ram Kishore along with Ct. Arun proceeded to spot of accident at Yamuna Bridge, near Pole No.5, NH-24 (on the road coming from Akshardham) where they found a fourteen wheel trolla with Registration No. UP 17T 9989 in the front and a TSR bearing Reg. No. DL 1RP 5413 on its back in accidental condition. It was observed that TSR was badly damaged from the front side whereas there were iron plates kept in the cargo area of trolla protruding the main body by 3-4 feet. It was also noticed that the the body of the trolla was not equipped with any backlight and its parking light was not put on. 2(b) In the meanwhile, SI Ram Kishore rushed to LBS Hospital, Khichdipur upon receipt of DD no. 07 PP from HC Pradeep (leaving Ct. Arun at the spot of accident), where he received MLCs (013272 till 013275) pertaining to four injured persons with the remarks that they had already left for treatment to an unknown hospital whereas MLC no.013276 was received for a brought dead victim. No eye witness was found in the hospital or at the spot.
2(c) FIR was registered under relevant provisions of law. Both the vehicles were seized and taken into police possession. Notice u/s 133 MV Act was served upon the TSR owner as well as the Trolla owner. Statement of witnesses were recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC. Driver of Trolla was produced by the owner in the police station. Post Mortem examination of the deceased was got conducted and the body was handed over to his relatives. The Insurance Policy of Trolla was not found valid during the investigation. Driver of Trolla refused to join the Test Identification Parade proceedings during investigation.
MACT No.410/2025 Afreen Vs. Saieem & Ors. page 3 of 38 Statement of PCR caller was recorded. Mechanical Inspection of both the vehicles were got conducted. Upon conclusion of investigation, Respondent No.1/ driver of Trolla was charge sheeted for causing death/ injuring victims due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle on a public way. DAR was also filed by Investigating Officer pertaining to injured persons namely Ms. Shamia, Ms. Amrin, Ms. Muskan and Mr. Arif and in respect of death of Late Sh. Suresh Chandra Mishra.
3. Reply:
3(a). All the respondents appeared on the date of filing of DAR and subsequently, filed their reply respectively. 3(b). In WS filed on behalf of R-1/ driver of offending Trolla, it is stated that he was holding a valid DL and the offending vehicle was duly insured. It is clarified that a policy of insurance was issued by authorised insurer upon receipt of cheque bearing no. 2250001219 dated 21.06.2017 towards the premium which was dishonoured and the policy was cancelled by the insurer, which was not intimated to the insured prior to the accident. It is further stated that the vehicle was stationed on the left side of the road and the TSR had hit Trolla from the back side, even though, parking light of the standing truck was on but the driver of TSR drove in a rash and negligent manner and rammed into the trolla. R-2 also filed WS on the lines of R-1 contending that the vehicle was duly insured and therefore the entire liability would fall on the insurance company.
3(c). In WS filed on behalf of insurance company, it is stated that the insurance policy bearing no. 254003/31/2018/575 was cancelled on 03.07.2017 on account of dishonour of cheque bearing no. 003937 dated 21.06.2017 drawn upon Union Bank MACT No.410/2025 Afreen Vs. Saieem & Ors. page 4 of 38 of India due to insufficient funds in their account. It is stated that the owner / insured was duly intimated about the cancellation of the policy through a letter / correspondence addressed to them vide a registered post therefore, the contract of insurance became void ab initio for want of consideration in this matter. It is stated that the aforesaid insurance policy was not in force as on the date of accident as the policy was already cancelled much prior to the accident and therefore, insurance company neither owes any contractual nor statutory liability to indemnify any third party liability arising out of use of such vehicle. It is also pointed out that the R-1 has already been charge sheeted for driving the vehicle without insurance and therefore, insurance company must be absolved entirely of any liability towards the claimants. Counsel for the insurance company relied upon case of United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Laxmamma & Ors (2012) 5 SCC 234 in support of its assertion. 3(d). Considering the assertion made by Insurance Company, this case was treated as one without insurance which is why driver and owner of the offending Trolla were directed vide order dated 19.01.2018 as to show cause as to why they should not be directed to furnish security deposit to satisfy the award. Vide order dated 03.02.2018, they were directed to furnish FDR in the sum of Rs. 8 lakhs noting that there were four injuries and one death in the matter. The directions were issued for auction of the offending vehicle vide order dated 26.04.2018 as FDR was not furnished despite specific directions. An Application supported with FDR of Rs. 10 lakhs was filed seeking stay of auction proceedings by counsel for the owner/ R-2 which was allowed vide order dated 12.07.2018.
MACT No.410/2025 Afreen Vs. Saieem & Ors. page 5 of 38
4. Issues:
4(a) Issues were framed vide order dated 26.04.2018:
1.Whether the Victim Sh. Suresh Mishra suffered fatal injury and Ms. Shamia, Ms. Afreen, Ms. Muskan and Sh. Aarif suffered injuries in a road traffic accident dated 13.09.2017 involving vehicle bearing Reg. no. UP 17T 9989 driven by R-1 and owned by R-2 (not insured) due to rash and negligent driving of R-1? OPP
2.Whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?OPP
3. Relief.
5. Evidence:
5(a) Injured Amrin tendered evidentiary affidavit and relied upon certain documents including medical bills, however, she was not cross examined and subsequently never appeared for the purpose of cross examination and therefore, her part examination is not being treated as evidence and therefore, not read.
5(b) PW-2 Muskan, who was stated to be eye witness to the present accident, was examined as summoned witness in connected case titled as Anju Devi Vs. Saieem who deposed about the mode and manner of the accident. She was cross examined by counsel for Insurance Company. 5(c) Petitioner Evidence was accordingly closed. 5(d) R-1/ Mr. Saieem was examined as R1W1 who tendered his evidentiary affidavit as Ex.R1W1/A. He was cross examined by counsel for claimant as well as counsel for insurance company.
5(e) R-2/ Sh. Lalit Khanduja tendered his evidentiary affidavit MACT No.410/2025 Afreen Vs. Saieem & Ors. page 6 of 38 as R2W1. He relied upon original insurance policy as Ex.R2W1/1. He was cross examined by counsel for insurance company as well as counsel for claimant.
5(f) R-3/ insurance company has examined its witness Sh. Raj Kumar, as R3W1 who relied upon documents Ex.R3W1/1 to Ex.R3W17 including, copy of insurance policy, cheque bearing no. 003937, Return Memo along with intimation, the report regarding non compliance of 64 VB as Ex.R3W1/4. 5(g) Respondent Evidence was also closed. Matter was then listed for Final Arguments.
6. Final Arguments:
6(a). Counsel for claimant argued that the accident happened on account of sheer recklessness on the part of driver of the offending vehicle. He also argued that the medical documents pertaining to injured are on record and compensation may be awarded to them on the basis of material available on record. 6(b) Counsel for the insurance company has argued that he has led evidence to prove that the cheque issued towards premium of issuance of insurance policy was dishonoured and the insurance company had duly intimated about the factum of dishonour of cheque and consequent cancellation of policy to the owner of the offending vehicle much prior to the accident and therefore, it owes no duty to indemnify owner against the liability incurred by him qua the accident caused by the use of offending vehicle. 6(c) Counsel for Driver and owner of the offending vehicle also filed Written Submissions stating that the accident took place on a 50 feet wide road while the vehicle was properly parked on the left side of the road under an electricity pole, therefore, even the spot of accident was well lit indicative to the MACT No.410/2025 Afreen Vs. Saieem & Ors. page 7 of 38 other road users about the stationed vehicle and therefore, the sole negligence is attributable to the TSR driver who negligently and unmindfully rammed into a stationed truck. It is pointed that the truck had its parking lights on and therefore, driver of the offending vehicle cannot be faulted with improper parking which caused the accident. Additionally, reliance has been placed upon T. O. Anthony Vs. Karvarnan & Ors. (2008) 3 SCC 748 and K Hemlata & Ors Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation (2017) 11 SCC 437 in respect of contributory negligence. It is also pointed out that the vehicle was duly insured as on the date of incident as per the information available with the owner and did not receive any intimation about the cancellation of the policy until after the accident occurred. It is stated that the email address of the owner's company was duly mentioned on the cover note of the policy document and the office of owner was also located in Ghaziabad. It is pointed out that the cancellation intimation could not reach the owner and was never emailed or was attempted to be sent on the other address of the owner or address of the agent and therefore, it cannot be stated that any intimation about the cancellation of insurance policy was indeed received by the owner of offending vehicle. Reliance placed upon following judgments:
(i) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Seema Malhotra & Ors. (2001) 3 SCC
(ii) United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Laxmamma & Ors. (2012) 5 SCC
(iii) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Inderjeet Kaur & Ors. (1998) 1 SCC 371.
MACT No.410/2025 Afreen Vs. Saieem & Ors. page 8 of 38
7. Discussion:
On the basis of material on record, evidence adduced and arguments addressed, issue wise findings are as under :-ISSUE NO. 1
Whether the Victim Sh. Suresh Mishra suffered fatal injury and Ms. Shamia, Ms. Afreen, Ms. Muskan and Sh. Aarif suffered injuries in a road traffic accident dated 13.09.2017 involving vehicle bearing Reg. no. UP 17T 9989 driven by R-1 and owned by R-2 (not insured) due to rash and negligent driving of R-1? OPP 7(a) PW-2 Muskan has been examined as an eye witness who deposed that on 13.09.2017 at about 04.00 AM, she along with Arif, Amrin and Shamia had hired an auto from Anand Vihar Station till their home at Sarai Kale Khan and while crossing Akshardham Flyover, the auto rammed into a Trolla, bearing Reg. No. UP 17T 9989, negligently stationed on the road without any indicators, blinker or or any other signage indicative of its parked position. She also affirmed that the trolla was loaded with iron rods which were hanging outside without any cloth or any other substance indicative of the loaded and protruding rods. She deposed that auto driver had died due to the accident whereas the passengers sitting in the TSR received injuries. She was extensively cross examined by counsel for the insurance company. She clarified that the she along with Amrin and Shamia were sitting on the passenger seat of the TSR whereas Arif was sitting along with driver of TSR. She declined the suggestion that the accident took place as driver of TSR could not balance it due to an extra passenger seated in it. She also stated that the driver of Trolla was present at the time of MACT No.410/2025 Afreen Vs. Saieem & Ors. page 9 of 38 accident, however, subsequently, fled away from the scene. She also admitted that she was examined before the concerned criminal court as well. She stated that she got to know about the death of TSR driver on the date of accident itself. She declined the suggestion that the accident did not occur on account of wrongful parking of the Trolla. She was not cross examined by counsel for driver and owner. Subsequently, PW-2 Amrin tendered evidentiary affidavit and relied upon certain documents including medical bills, however, she was not cross examined and subsequently never appeared for the purpose of cross examination and therefore, her part examination is not being treated as evidence and therefore, not read. 7(b). The first description of the spot of accident, as noted by SI Ram Kishore when he reached at the spot upon receipt of first information about the accident, where he found the two vehicles in accidental condition, explains all about the manner of the accident and the potential cause thereto. It is noted as part of charge sheet that the iron plates / iron rods were significantly protruding out of the main body of the trolla without any warning sign, indicative to the other public users for cautious driving, with no backlights and no parking lights in use at the time of accident. The extent of damage on the frontal side of the TSR also explains that the driver of TSR was caught unaware of the stationed trolla ahead and particularly about the hanging / protruding iron rods/ plates. There is no evidence on record to suggest that any reflectors were put in place to indicate that the vehicle was parked / stationed on one side of the road. Merely to state that it was a wide road with full CCTV coverage and ample roadlight, thereby imputing the cause of accident to the MACT No.410/2025 Afreen Vs. Saieem & Ors. page 10 of 38 negligence of the TSR driver, cannot absolve the trolla driver of responsible supervision and efficient handling of such a big vehicle. PW-2 Muskan has categorically deposed that the accident happened due to sole negligence of the trolla driver. She was not asked to clarify about the visibility or the functionality of the roadlights at the time of accident. 7(c). Driver of the offending vehicle examined himself as R1W1 who affirmed that the vehicle was positioned on left side of the 50 feet wide road as a stone had stuck between the wheels of the truck due to which, it could not be put in motion and so he stationed the truck on left side so as to pull out the stone to ensure smooth riding of truck. He specified that the parking lights of the truck were put on, however, TSR, being driven in rash and negligent manner suddenly rammed into the truck. 7(d). There is no significance of the reason as to why the driver decided to station the truck. There is no evidence about a particular duration for which it was stationed. Further, if there was a mechanical issue, the driver would not have been in a position to actually navigate the truck to the extreme left so as to avoid any mishappening. It is noted that truck was temporarily halted due to lodging of a stone in the tyre, was not put forth in the WS filed on behalf of R-1 & R-2. TSR vehicle was also being plied towards the left lane possibly to ensure safe travel. TSR driver could not have anticipated a big vehicle stationed ahead on the left side without any indication whatsoever. The affirmation made by the driver in his affidavit that the parking lights were on, only appears to the an afterthought, considering the first moment observations put forth by the Investigating Officer when he first visited the spot. No reason or adverse MACT No.410/2025 Afreen Vs. Saieem & Ors. page 11 of 38 interest can be imputed upon the Investigating Officer for not reporting the facts truthfully as part of the charge sheet. It is a case where the manner and extent of damage itself narrate the story of utter recklessness on the part of trolla driver who was in effective charge and exercised complete supervision over the handling of the trolla vehicle at the time of accident. It was the responsibility of the trolla driver to not only ensure safe driving but safe halting so that his actions do not pose danger to the other road users. No where has R1W1 affirmed that the iron sheets / iron rods were not protruding out of the body of the running board or that any blinkers were used / employed/ made functional at the end of those rods to indicate to the other road users about any such dangerous goods being carried in the vehicle.
7(e). Relevant at this stage would be to reproduce Rule 93 (8) of Central Motor Vehicles Rule 1989 which prescribed the applicable rules in respect of any load being carried in a motor vehicle, as under:
"No motor vehicle shall be loaded in such a manner that the load or any part thereof extends,
(i)laterally beyond the side of the body;
(ii)to the front beyond the foremost part of the load body of the vehicle;
(iii)to the rear beyond the rear most part of the vehicle;
(iv)to a height beyond the limits specified in sub-rule (4):Provided that clause (iii)shall not apply to a goods carriage when loaded with any pole or rod or indivisible load so long as the projecting part or parts do not exceed the distance of one metre beyond the rear most point of the motor vehicle."
7(f). Noting that such load protrusions became one of the major cause of road accidents running into several thousands in different states of India, the Road Transport Ministry deleted the proviso to Sec. 93 (8) of CMVR 1989 to ban the vehicles from MACT No.410/2025 Afreen Vs. Saieem & Ors. page 12 of 38 carrying the rods, pipes or any protruding materials beyond the body frame of a motor vehicle. This was notified by Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways vide its Notification G.S.R.152 (E) dated 05.03.2014, with the result that any goods carrier would not be permitted to carry any load protruding outside the body frame of the motor vehicle while moving or in a stationary position. An advisory in this respect was also issued by Joint Secretary to the Government of India vide Correspondence No. 24013/24/C.C./2012-CSR.III (Part), Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs (CS Division), addressed to The Chief Secretaries of the State Government and UT Administration to strictly ensure that no vehicle should be allowed to carry protruding load and other dangerous, protruding materials and that strict action should be taken against the violators under the Appropriate Laws. The violators were directed to be prosecuted under Sec. 190 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 which prescribes the law in respect of using of Motor Vehicle in an unsafe condition. Sec. 190 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
"190. Using vehicle in unsafe condition. - (1) Any person who drives or causes or allows to be driven in any public place a motor vehicle or trailer while the vehicle or trailer has any defect, which such person knows of or could have discovered by the exercise of ordinary care and which is calculated to render the driving of the vehicle a source of danger to persons and vehicles using such place, shall be punishable with fine [of one thousand five hundred rupees] or, if as a result of such defect an accident is caused causing bodily injury or damage to property, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine [of five thousand rupees], or with both [and for a subsequent offence shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with a fine of ten thousand rupees for bodily injury or damage to property]."
MACT No.410/2025 Afreen Vs. Saieem & Ors. page 13 of 38 7(g). Section 190 MV Act penalizes any person in respect of a motor vehicle being used in any public place in a manner violating the standards prescribed in relation to road safety or violative of the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder in relation to the carriage of goods which are of dangerous or hazardous nature to humane life. 7(h). Eye witness PW-2 Muskan clearly stated that the Trolla was negligently stationed on the road without any indicator, blinker or any stoppage sign. Corresponding to this affirmation, is the unequivocal and categoric observation of the Investigating Officer in the Charge Sheet that there was no back light installed, the parking light was not put on and the iron plates /rods were protruding by three to four feet. There is no challenge to the Charge-sheet and specifically to this observation by the contesting counsels. The Investigating Officer has not been made to testify to tender any explanation or to seek any contradiction in the observations made as part of charge sheet and there is no reason with the court to disbelieve the same. The counsel for R-1 & 2 has rather relied upon the site plan forming part of the charge sheet to show that the truck was stationed below an electricity pole on a 50 feet wide road and therefore, there is no occasion for the collision to have happened and thus, in the same breath, he cannot be allowed to question the observations made by the Investigating Officer when he first visited the spot of accident and saw the vehicles in accidental condition.
7(i). There is no evidence that the road was sufficiently lit at the time of accident that the TSR driver had clear visibility of MACT No.410/2025 Afreen Vs. Saieem & Ors. page 14 of 38 the stationed trolla ahead. It is also evident that no blinkers or warning signs were installed at the rear end of the protruding material to indicate to the other road users that such a protruding load was being carried in the trolla. It is settled that the vehicle cannot be stated to be properly parked / stationed unless proved that the parking lights were on and the blinkers / reflectors were put in place indicating to the other road user about a stationed loaded truck. (Reliance placed upon the case titled as Mohini Mohanrao Salunke Vs. Ramdas Hanumant Jadhav & Ors. J 1013 FA 569-2022, decided by Bombay High Court). The contention that it was a 50 feet wide road and therefore, the TSR driver ought to have passed from the side of trolla would be like to state that the driver had no right to use left side of the road where the trolla was stationed which is a very absurd projection. It is evident that the obstacles / road block ahead was not in active anticipation of the TSR driver due to which he rammed straight into the protruding iron rods and suffered fatal injury. 7(j). There is no evidence that the TSR driver was speedily or rashly driving and was not dutiful towards the safety of passengers seated in the TSR at the time of accident There is no evidence that the TSR itself lost control as suggested by counsel for insurance company on account of a passenger seated next to him on the driver seat thereby causing the accident. What the accidental condition and extent of damage speaks is that the TSR driver did not realise that there was any stationed truck ahead and that too with dangerous protruding iron rods and had no time to navigate to avoid or avert the collision with the protruding iron rods/plates in order to save his life. 7(k). There is absolutely no dispute in respect of identification MACT No.410/2025 Afreen Vs. Saieem & Ors. page 15 of 38 of the offending vehicle considering that the vehicle was seized by the police officials from the site of accident itself. There is no denial by R-1 & R-2 that the accident did not take place with Trolla. Driver of the offending vehicle was produced by the owner of the offending vehicle in the police station upon service of notice under Section 133 MV Act. It is not out of place to mention that the driver of the offending vehicle R1 had refused to participate in the Test Identification Parade proceeding. Relevant would it be also to note the affirmation of PW-2 Muskan that the driver had fled away from the scene after the accident which also reflects upon the basic sense of responsibility and accountability showcased by the said driver on the occasion of unfateful eventuality.
7(l). R-1 has been charge sheeted for causing injury to victims due to speedy and rash driving of the offending vehicle. It is settled that filing of charge sheet itself is a significant step towards the inference of negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle. (Support drawn from the Judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Vs. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 Delhi as referred and relied by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Ranjeet & Anr. Vs. Abdul Kayam Neb & Anr SLP (C) No. 10351/2019).
7(m). On account of the detailed discussion above, the contention raised on behalf of R-1 that he had put his parking lights on and the negligence was on the part of TSR driver to ram the TSR into a stationed trolla on the left side of the road is rejected.
7(n). It is a well-established legal principle that negligence in motor accident cases should be determined based on the MACT No.410/2025 Afreen Vs. Saieem & Ors. page 16 of 38 preponderance of probabilities, not on proof beyond reasonable doubt. The facts and circumstances must be considered in a broad and practical manner. It is also settled that proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are different from regular civil suits and are not strictly governed by the technical rules of the Indian Evidence Act. This view has been supported in the judgments of Bimla Devi & Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors., (2009) 13 SCC 530; Kaushnumma Begum & Ors. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2001 ACJ 421 (SC); and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa Rana, 2009 ACJ 287. 7(o). It is held that the Trolla driver was reckless in having stationed the fourteen wheeled trolla with protruding iron rods / iron plates beyond its body frame, (prohibited by law) and also without any blinkers on the tail of the protruding load and even without putting on the parking lights indicating to the other road users about a vehicle stationed ahead so that they can exercise caution while driving / while using the public road. It is thus held that the accident occurred on account of utter negligence on the part of driver of the offending trolla whereby he failed to exercise basic duty of care towards the safety of the fellow road users, resulting in a major accident. Issue No.1 is decided accordingly, in favour of the petitioners and against the contesting respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2"Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?OPP"
8. Section 168 MV Act enjoins the Claim Tribunal to hold an enquiry into the claim to make an effort determining the amount MACT No.410/2025 Afreen Vs. Saieem & Ors. page 17 of 38 of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable. Same is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
"(1) Award of the Claims Tribunal.--On receipt of an application for compensation made under section 166, the Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the application to the insurer and after giving the parties (including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim or, as the case may be, each of the claims and, subject to the provisions of section 162 may make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid and in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them, as the case may be: Provided that where such application makes a claim for compensation under section 140 in respect of the death or permanent disablement of any person, such claim and any other claim (whether made in such application or otherwise) for compensation in respect of such death or permanent disablement shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Chapter X. (2) The Claims Tribunal shall arrange to deliver copies of the award to the parties concerned expeditiously and in any case within a period of fifteen days from the date of the award.
(3) When an award is made under this section, the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall, within thirty days of the date of announcing the award by the Claims Tribunal, deposit the entire amount awarded in such manner as the Claims Tribunal may direct."
9. Before putting in frame the position of law, it is noted that the process of determining the compensation by the court is essentially a very difficult task and can never be an exact MACT No.410/2025 Afreen Vs. Saieem & Ors. page 18 of 38 science. Perfect compensation is hardly possible, more so in claims of injury and disability. (As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sidram Vs. The Divisional Manager United India Insurance Company Ltd, SLP (Civil) No. 19277 of 2019).
10. The basic principle in assessing motor vehicle compensation claims, is to place the victim in as near a position as she or he was in before the accident, with other compensatory directions for loss of amenities and other payments. These general principles have been stated and reiterated in several decisions. [Support drawn from Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683] .
11. This Tribunal has been tasked with determination of just compensation. The observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty and Another, (2003) 7 SCC 197, needs mention here (para 15):
"Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation must be "just" and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit but the same should not be a pittance. The courts and tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just. What would be "just"
compensation is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb.
Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of "just" compensation which MACT No.410/2025 Afreen Vs. Saieem & Ors. page 19 of 38 is the pivotal consideration. Though by use of the expression "which appears to it to be just", a wide discretion is vested in the Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness.. ..."
12. Delineating the damages as pecuniary and non pecuniary, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in case of R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt Ltd, 1995 AIR 755, made following observations:
"9....while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-
pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non- pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future;
(ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life."
13. Certain principles for delineating just compensation were enumerated in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., MACT No.410/2025 Afreen Vs. Saieem & Ors. page 20 of 38 (2011) 1 SCC 343, by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Following observations are relevant in the context:
"40.General principles relating to compensation in injury cases
5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act", for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or the Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. [See C.K. Subramania Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair [(1969) 3 SCC 64 : AIR 1970 SC 376] , R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. [(1995) 1 SCC 551 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 250] and Baker v. Willoughby [1970 AC 467 : (1970) 2 WLR 50 : (1969) 3 All ER 1528 (HL)] .]
6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the MACT No.410/2025 Afreen Vs. Saieem & Ors. page 21 of 38 injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and
(iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii),
(v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.
7. Assessment of pecuniary damages under Item
(i) and under Item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses--Item (iii)--depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non- pecuniary damages--Items (iv), (v) and (vi)-- involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/ disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant.
MACT No.410/2025 Afreen Vs. Saieem & Ors. page 22 of 38
14. It is settled proposition of law as held in catena of judgments that "just compensation" should include all elements that would go to place the victim in as near a position as she or he was in, before the occurrence of the accident. Whilst no amount of money or other material compensation can erase the trauma, pain and suffering that a victim undergoes after a serious accident, (or replace the loss of a loved one), monetary compensation is the manner known to law, whereby society assures some measure of restitution to those who survive, and the victims who have to face their lives.
15. As discussed above, injured Amrin filed her evidentiary affidavit and relied upon certain documents, including medical bills. However, her cross examination could not be conducted, and as such, her part-examination cannot be treated as evidence. The medical records placed on record however indicate that she sustained a fracture in the C-2 vertebra. Additionally, she suffered a contused lacerated wound (CLW) near her left eye, for which she initially received treatment at Holy Family Hospital, followed by further treatment at Lok Nayak Hospital and Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital in Delhi. Bed rest was also prescribed, particularly for spinal care. No educational qualification document has been filed. Despite the nature of her injuries, no document has been placed on record to establish any loss of income as a result of the accident. The documents available with the DAR show that she is a resident of Delhi. In the absence of any documentary proof of her income, and keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered, her income is assessed on the basis of minimum wages applicable in the NCT MACT No.410/2025 Afreen Vs. Saieem & Ors. page 23 of 38 of Delhi at the time of the accident which was Rs.13,584/-. Considering the extent of her injury and the prescribed rest, she is reasonably assessed to have remained incapable to work for gain. Therefore, her loss of income is calculated to be Rs. 13,584/- x 3 = Rs.40,752/-.
16. Having regard to the law as also discussed above regarding compensation, in the present case award amount is calculated as under:
Sl. no. Pecuniary loss : - Quantum
1. (i) Expenditure on treatment : Medical Rs.16,444/-
bills for a sum of Rs.11,444/- filed on record. Sundry miscellaneous expenses of Rs. 5,000/- additionally awarded to injured.
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance : No bill Rs. 10,000/- for conveyance has been filed, however, considering the nature of injury, it can be considered that claimant would not have been in a position to use public transport.
(iii) Expenditure on special diet : There Rs.10,000/- is no prescription for special diet.
By guess work, compensation can be awarded for special diet.
(iv) Cost of nursing / attendant :
Rs. 10,000/-
Even in the absence of documentary proof, compensation for attendant's charges is to be given for nursing services rendered by family members.
(v) Loss of income : as discussed Rs.40,752/-. above: Rs. 13,584/- x 3 = Rs.40,752/-.
2. Non-Pecuniary Loss :
(i) Compensation of mental and physical Rs.50,000/- shock as well as pain and suffering: The nature of injuries as per record indicate that she would have suffered immense MACT No.410/2025 Afreen Vs. Saieem & Ors. page 24 of 38 physical and mental distress.
(ii) Loss of amenities of life : Rs.10,000/- Total Compensation Rs.1,47,196/-
Deduction, if any Nil Total Compensation after deduction Rs.1,47,196/- Interest As directed below
17. Interest:
17(a) It is settled that any fixed rate of interest cannot be prescribed for all cases at all times and would largely depend upon the prevailing rate of interest as per the applicable guidelines. As such, interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum is deemed fit and accordingly granted in the present case. (Reliance placed upon National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Yad Ram MAC APP 526/2018 also referred and relied in case of The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Sohan Lal & Ors. MAC APP 70/2024 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court).
18. Liability:-
18(a) Insurance company produced R3W1 Sh. Raj Kumar, Senior Assistant, The Oriental Insurance Company, who deposed that the policy no.25400/31/2018/575 was obtained in respect of the offending vehicle upon issuance of a cheque bearing no. 003937 dated 21.06.2017, drawn on Union Bank of India which was cancelled subsequently on 03.07.2017 from the date of inception, on account of dishonour of cheque towards premium consideration, the intimation about which was received by the insurance company on 29.06.2017. The above mentioned MACT No.410/2025 Afreen Vs. Saieem & Ors. page 25 of 38 dishonoured cheque has been placed on record as Ex.R3W1/2 and the return memo along with intimation of dishonour is Ex.R3W1/3 (colly). The report regarding non compliance of 64 (VB) of Insurance Act is Ex.R3W1/4. The insurance policy originally issued has been relied as Ex.R3W1/1 while its cancellation upon non realisation of the premium by the office of insurance company is Ex.R3W1/5. R3W1 Raj Kumar further deposed that owner / R-2 of the offending vehicle as well as the concerned office head of Transport Authority at Baghpat were duly intimated regarding the cancellation of the policy. He relied upon copy of letters addressed to the insured and the Transport Authority as Ex.R3W1/6 while the dispatch register with postal dispatch receipts along with entries and original returned envelope addressed to the owner and RTO have been placed reliance upon as Ex.R3W1/7 (OSR). He deposed that the vehicle was not insured as on the date of accident.
18(b). R3W1 was extensively cross examined by counsel for R-1 & R-2 wherein he stated that policy Ex.R3W1/1 was issued by the Ghaziabad Office of the insurance company, however, admitting that the cancellation intimation was sent to the Baghpat address of the policy holder which was returned back with the remarks "kafi talash ke baad kuch bhi pata nahi chala". He stated that he had no personal knowledge about any other office of Lion Transport, located in Ghaziabad and also was not aware as to whether the owner/ proprietor of Lion Transport was residing in Ghaziabad which is why, they did not forward the cancellation intimation to Ghaziabad address. He stated that he was not aware whether any cancellation intimation was emailed to owner of the offending vehicle or whether any MACT No.410/2025 Afreen Vs. Saieem & Ors. page 26 of 38 such intimation was sent to the agent or whether any mobile message was sent to the owner of the offending vehicle. He also stated that any legal notice was not issued to R-2 regarding cancellation upon dishonour of cheque. The witness could not trace out the dispatch postal receipt for sending the cancellation intimation from the record. He admitted that any registered postal receipt is not reflected in the dak book of the oriental insurance company which is Ex.R3W1/7. He declined the suggestion that the cancellation intimation was duly sent at Baghpat address of the Lion Transport Corporation. 18(c). Counsel for insurance company has argued that the insurance company has no contractual and statutory liability to compensate the victim against an obligation to indemnify the acts of owner as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Per contra, counsel for R-1 & R-2 has contended that intimation about cancellation of insurance policy was not duly given to the respondent no.2 as owner and therefore, insurance company cannot shy from its obligation to indemnify the third parties in respect of the liability against the insurance policy. 18(d). The legal position in respect of the liability of the insurance company when the insurance policy has already been cancelled prior to the date of accident, upon non payment of consideration has been summarized in Para 26 of United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Laxmamma & ors (2012) 5 SCC 234 which is reproduced as under:
"In our view, the legal position is this: where the policy of insurance is issued by an authorised insurer on receipt of cheque towards the payment of premium and such a cheque MACT No.410/2025 Afreen Vs. Saieem & Ors. page 27 of 38 is returned dishonoured, the liability of the authorised insurer to indemnify the third parties in respect of the liability which that policy covered subsists and it has to satisfy the award of compensation by reason of the provisions of Sections 147(5) and 149(1) of the MV Act unless the policy of insurance is cancelled by the authorised insurer and intimation of such cancellation has reached the insured before the accident. In other words, where the policy of insurance is issued by an authorised insurer to cover a vehicle on receipt of the cheque paid towards premium and the cheque gets dishonoured and before the accident of the vehicle occurs, such insurance company cancels the policy of insurance and sends intimation thereof to the owner, the insurance company's liability to indemnify the third parties which that policy covered ceases and the insurance company is not liable to satisfy awards of compensation in respect thereof."
18(e). Hon'ble Supreme Court of India referred to its own decision in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Inderjeet Kaur & Ors. (1998) 1 SCC 371 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs. Rula (2000) 3 SCC 195 with reference to Sec. 64 (VB) of the Insurance Act and relevant provisions of the Contract Act and made following observations in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Seema Malhotra & Ors. (2001) 3 SCC which were again referred and relied in the case of Laxmamma (supra). Para no. 17 to 20 of the case of Seema Malhotra (supra) as referred in the Laxmamma (supra) case are reproduced hereunder for the purpose of further discussion:
"17.. In a contract of insurance when the insured gives a cheque towards payment of premium or part of the MACT No.410/2025 Afreen Vs. Saieem & Ors. page 28 of 38 premium, such a contract consists of reciprocal promise. The drawer of the cheque promises the insurer that the cheque, on presentation, would yield the amount in cash. It cannot be forgotten that a cheque is a bill of exchange drawn on a specified banker. A bill of exchange is an instrument in writing containing an unconditional order directing a certain person to pay a certain sum of money to a certain person. It involves a promise that such money would be paid.
18. Thus, when the insured fails to pay the premium promised, or when the cheque issued by him towards the premium is returned dishonoured by the bank concerned the insurer need not perform his part of the promise. The corollary is that the insured cannot claim performance from the insurer in such a situation.
19. Under Section 25 of the Contract Act an agreement made without consideration is void. Section 65 of the Contract Act says that when a contract becomes void any person who has received any advantage under such contract is bound to restore it to the person from whom he received it. So, even if the insurer has disbursed the amount covered by the policy to the insured before the cheque was returned dishonoured, the insurer is entitled to get the money back.
20. However, if the insured makes up the premium even after the cheque was dishonoured but before the date of accident it would be a different case as payment of consideration can be treated as paid in the order in which the nature of transaction required it. As such an event did not happen in this case, the insurance company is legally justified in refusing to pay the amount claimed by the respondents."
18(f). In a similar case, as facts of the matter at hand titled as Deddappa & Ors. Vs. The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 767 also referred in the Laxmamma (supra) case, following observations as relevant in the context of present discussion were made:
"24.We are not oblivious of the distinction between the statutory liability of the insurance company vis-à-vis a MACT No.410/2025 Afreen Vs. Saieem & Ors. page 29 of 38 third party in the context of Sections 147 and 149 of the Act and its liabilities in other cases. But the same liabilities arising under a contract of insurance would have to be met if the contract is valid. If the contract of insurance has been cancelled and all concerned have been intimated thereabout, we are of the opinion, the insurance company would not be liable to satisfy the claim."
18(g). The legal position as summarized above in the case of Laxmamma (Supra), has been relied by counsel for the R-1 & R-2 as well as by counsel for insurance company. 18(h). It is not in dispute that the Insurance Policy Ex.R3W1/A was duly issued in respect of offending vehicle for a specified period on 30.06.2017 at Ghaziabad with the payable premium against Own Damage as Rs.12,578/- and total amount including the TP cover as Rs.52,615/-. Cheque of the amount of Rs. 52,615/- with date of issue as 21.06.2017, placed on record as Ex.R3W1/2 was issued, which was dishonoured for reasons "fund insufficient" vide Return Memo dated 23.06.2017, received by the Ghaziabad Branch on 29.06.2017. The report about non compliance of Sec. 64 (VB) of Insurance Act, 1938 was issued on 29.06.2017 while the policy was cancelled due to dishonour of cheque and non realisation of premium on 30.06.2017.
18(i). Before proceeding further, it is imperative to reproduce Sec. 64 (VB) of Insurance Act, 1938 which lays down that the insurance company shall be under no liability to assume risk unless the premium is duly paid in the prescribed manner:
64VB. No risk to be assumed unless premium is received in advance "(1)No insurer shall assume any risk in India in respect of any insurance business on which premium is not ordinarily payable MACT No.410/2025 Afreen Vs. Saieem & Ors. page 30 of 38 outside India unless and until the premium payable is received by him or is guaranteed to be paid by such person in such manner and within such time as may be prescribed or unless and until deposit of such amount as may be prescribed, is made in advance in the prescribed manner.(2)For the purposes of this section, in the case of risks for which premium can be ascertained in advance, the risk may be assumed not earlier than the date on which the premium has been paid in cash or by cheque to the insurer.Explanation.--Where the premium is tendered by postal money order or cheque sent by post, the risk may be assumed on the date on which the money order is booked or the cheque is posted, as the case may be.(3)Any refund of premium which may become due to an insured on account of the cancellation of a policy or alteration in its terms and conditions or otherwise shall be paid by the insurer directly to the insured by a crossed or order cheque or by postal money order and a proper receipt shall be obtained by the insurer from the insured, and such refund shall in no case be credited to the account of the agent.(4)Where an insurance agent collects a premium on a policy of insurance on behalf of an insurer, he shall deposit with, or dispatch by post to, the insurer, the premium so collected in full without deduction of his commission within twenty-four hours of the collection excluding bank and postal holidays.(5)The Central Government may, by rules, relax the requirements of sub-
section (1) in respect of particular categories in insurance policies.(6)The Authority may, from time to time, specify, by the regulations made by it, the manner of receipt of premium by the insurer."
18(j). It is not in dispute that the premium was duly paid against the issued policy by way of cheque, however, as the cheque was dishonoured, the insurance company cancelled the issued insurance policy from the date of its inception upon non compliance of Sec. 64 (VB) of Insurance Act 1938. The only issue in contention between R-2 & R-3 is that the intimation about cancellation of policy was not duly given to R-2. Therefore, he did not come to know that the policy was indeed cancelled by the insurance company. It is not in dispute that the notice/ letter intimating the owner as well as the concerned Baghpat RTA were duly issued by the Insurance Company about MACT No.410/2025 Afreen Vs. Saieem & Ors. page 31 of 38 cancellation of policy due to non compliance of 64 (VB) of Insurance Act, however, it is also not in dispute that the communication sent through Registered Post was not served upon the owner and was returned back to the Insurance Company. The returned envelope as received by the insurance company, has been placed on record as part of the evidence led on behalf of insurance company which mentions the reason for return as "kaafi talash karne ke bad bhi koi pata nahi chala, wapis". It is noted that the address mentioned on the registered post envelope is the one as mentioned on the policy about particulars of the insured. It is noted that this envelope was returned back on 06.07.2017 while the policy itself was to commence from 22.06.2017. Therefore, there is no reason to presume that the company office shifted from the address already mentioned on the policy as per the particulars provided by the insured himself in such a short time. There is no explanation rendered by the insured about the incorrect address given by him while getting the policy issued or about choosing not to inform the insurance company about change in address thereafter. R-2 admitted during cross examination about dishonour of the cheque towards premium amount. He also admitted that he did not take any step to deposit the premium amount and get the policy re-issued. He declined the suggestion that he was duly intimated about the cancellation of policy at the address mentioned in the Insurance Policy. There is no affirmation by R-2/ Lalit Khandooja that he did not get to know about the dishonour of the cheque issued towards the premium amount. R-2 Lalit Khanduja himself admitted that the Lion Transport Company is his proprietorship firm and thus, he was MACT No.410/2025 Afreen Vs. Saieem & Ors. page 32 of 38 solely responsible for the accounts of the firm therefore, it cannot be accepted that he did not get to know could not have known about the dishonour of cheque issued towards the premium amount. It can be inferred from his conduct that he chose to be quiet and not to act nonetheless, as the policy had already been issued with no intimation purportedly received by him towards cancellation. He cannot be absolved thus upon contesting that the agent ought to have been informed on the details mentioned in the policy or that he should also have been informed on the mobile number through SMS on his mobile phone. There is no evidence that the insurance company resorted to inform Lalit Khanduja/ owner of the offending vehicle on the modes as mentioned above, in addition to the communication sent through the registered post. Counsel for R-2 argued that any registered post dispatch receipt has not been filed on record. However, copy of dispatch register wherein the receipt was pasted mentioning the dispatch details has been placed on record as part of evidence led on behalf of insurance company. Further as the envelope itself was returned back which mentions the dispatch details and the reason of return, there seems to be no relevance of this contention that the original dispatch receipt has not been placed on record. There is no evidence led by R-2/ owner of the offending vehicle to affirm that he was running the firm from the same address during the period between commencement of the insurance policy and date of return of the unserved envelope and therefore, the communication was wrongly returned. Per contra, once the Insurance Company came to know about the return of communication as unserved, considering the importance of this communication which might MACT No.410/2025 Afreen Vs. Saieem & Ors. page 33 of 38 jeopardize the lives of third parties not related to the owner and not responsible for the non-payment of the premium amount, ought to have resorted to establish the communication with the owner to inform about the cancellation of the policy upon dishonour of cheque. Although, the mode of communication through registered post is an established acceptable mode, however, there is no reason why that should be the only mode adopted by the insurance company to inform about the cancellation of policy.
18(k). Cancellation of policy is a vital communication with adverse profound consequences for third parties and cannot be treated as a routine casual communication and therefore, as a matter of public policy and the obligations taken up by the insurance policy to provide a social security cover to the innocent people on the road, it is incumbent upon the insurance company to ensure to adopt all possible modes available to disburse the information to the concerned so that the person becomes liable and answerable for the lapse. 18(l). In the case at hand, even though, insurance company did its part by sending the intimation through registered post on the address mentioned on the insurance policy, however, upon gaining the knowledge that it was not served upon the addressee, it was necessary for the insurance company to ensure taking relevant steps to resort to other modes to disburse the crucial intimation upon the owner since, the onus of intimation upon the owner was cast upon the insurance company and not upon the owner. There is no presumption laid down that the owner ought to have developed the understanding on its own that the insurance company would have cancelled the MACT No.410/2025 Afreen Vs. Saieem & Ors. page 34 of 38 policy as the premium was not paid. Given the importance of this communication and the adverse consequences that it might entail, it is necessary that the intimation about cancellation of policy be disbursed through multiple modes to the owner so as to give him time to correct, sometimes, an unintentional lapse. The Insurance Policy Ex.R3W1/A reflects that the offending vehicle was previously insured and therefore, it does not imply that the owner was reckless throughout to have a commercial vehicle run on the public roads without fulfilling the mandatory statutory requirement of getting the vehicle insured so as to give coverage and protection to the third parties, liable to be indemnified by the insured. Summing up, it can be stated that the owner has defaulted in the payment of the premium amount granting the right to the insurance company to cancel the policy since the date of its inception on account of non compliance of Sec. 64 (VB) of Insurance Act, as consideration towards the contractual liability. However, given the nature of contractual as well as statutory liability, unilateral cancellation by the insurance company cannot be deemed to be due and complete cancellation without ensuring that the cancellation has been duly intimated. The insurance company could not have washed its hand off the matter simply by asserting that the intimation was sent through registered post on the address notified as part of the insurance policy and should have gone beyond that to ensure that the crucial intimation is received by concerned without fail which was not done, entailing serious consequences to the victims of the accident with the uninsured vehicle. Insurance Company is therefore held liable to pay to the victims of the accident the compensation as awarded in this matter with simple interest @ MACT No.410/2025 Afreen Vs. Saieem & Ors. page 35 of 38 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of DAR till actual realization, however, with the right to recover the awarded amount from the R-1/driver (basis of his liability has already been discussed in Issue No.1) and R-2/owner of Trolla. (If there is any order regarding excluding of interest for specific period same be complied at the time of calculation of award amount). It is noted that FDR of Rs. 10,00,000/- was filed on record by R-2 as security deposit to secure stay against auction of the offending vehicle. Upon compliance of the directions about primary payment of the compensation by Insurance Company to the claimants, it would be entitled for encashment of the FDR against recovery rights from R-1/driver & R-2/owner. 18(m). The award amount shall be deposited by the Insurance Company. Counsel for the Insurance Company is also directed to furnish the complete case details, including the MACT case number, CNR number, FIR number, name of Police Station, name of the deceased/claimant(s), date of accident, and any other relevant particulars, to the State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi at the time of getting the amount deposited. The amount shall be deposited through RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in the account titled "MACT FUND PARKING", Account No. 00000042706870765, IFSC Code SBIN0014244, MICR Code 110002342, under intimation to the Nazir of this Tribunal.
19. Release of Award Amount/ Disbursement Total award amount along with proportionate (to the principle amount) up to date interest is released in the bank account of MACT No.410/2025 Afreen Vs. Saieem & Ors. page 36 of 38 injured.
20. In terms of the Practice Directions issued by Hon'ble High Court, vide reference no. 134/Rules/DHC, dated 14.05.2025, the claimant (s) are directed to produce their bank account details along with either a certificate of the banker giving all details of the bank account of the person or persons entitled to receive the compensation including IFS Code, or a copy of cancelled cheque of the bank account to this Tribunal with seven days of the date of Award, if not already placed on record. They are also directed to file their Aadhar Card and PAN Card if not already filed.
21. Directions to the Branch Manager, SBI, Saket Court Complex 21(a) The Manager, SBI, Saket Court Complex, is further directed to verify the documents and details submitted by the claimant pertaining to their bank account, and upon proper verification, under certification of the Branch Manager (of the bank whose details have been provided by the claimant for release of the compensation amount) disburse the amount, directed to be released to the claimant, directly into the verified bank account of the claimant under notice to the Tribunal.
22. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD.
1 Date of accident 13.09.2017 MACT No.410/2025 Afreen Vs. Saieem & Ors. page 37 of 38 2 Name of injured Amrin @ Afreen 3 Age of the injured 18 years as per MLC 4 Occupation of the Not proved.
injured 5 Income of the injured As per minimum wages.
6 Nature injury Grievous injury 7 Medical treatment taken As per record.
by the injured:
8 Period of As per record.
Hospitalization 9 Whether any permanent No. disability?
23. Copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost. The copy of award be also sent to the DLSA and Ld. Digitally signed by SHELLY Metropolitan Magistrate. SHELLY ARORA (Pronounced in the ARORA Date:
2025.06.02 16:43:35 +0530 open court on 02.06.2025) (Shelly Arora) PO-MACT-01 (South-East) Saket Court/ New Delhi 02.06.2025 MACT No.410/2025 Afreen Vs. Saieem & Ors. page 38 of 38