Delhi District Court
Master Yogesh Kumar ... vs Abhishek Singh Kushawah (Iffco Tokio) on 6 September, 2025
DLCT010074512020
Presented on : 29-10-2020
Registered on : 02-11-2020
Decided on : 06-09-2025
Duration : 04 Years 10 Months
IN THE TRIBUNAL OF PRESIDING OFFICER-MACT-02,
CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI
PRESIDED OVER BY DR. PANKAJ SHARMA
MACT NO. 549/20
MASTER YOGESH
S/o Sh.Raj Pal
R/o Jhuggi No. J-35, Chunna Bhatti,
Sarai Rohilla, Delhi-110005.
(Through his natural guardian being
father namely Raj Pal) ....Petitioner
Vs
1. ABHISHEK SINGH KHUSHWAH
S/o Sh. Mahaveer Singh
R/o H.No. 798D, Street No. 09,
Chanderlok Conly, Delhi-93. (Driver).
2. DEEPAK
S/o Sh. Phool chand
R/o Kh. No. 139, Taj Encalve
Loni, Ghaziabad, UP. (Owner)
3. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Sub Delhi Commercial 2nd Floor,
IFFCO House 34, Nehru Place,
New Delhi-110019.(Insurer).
(Through Ld. Counsel Sh. R.K.Gupta)
...Respondents
MACT No. 549/20 Master Yogesh Vs. Abhishek Singh Khushwah & Ors. Page No. 1/29
Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.06 11:24:28 +0530 The particulars of Form-XVII of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, in terms of directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the judgment titled as 'Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors., FAO No. 842/2003 dated 08.01.2021 are as under:-
1. Date of the accident 15/11/19
2. Date of filing of Form-I - First Accident Report N.A. (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the victim(s) N.A.
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the Driver N.A.
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Owner N.A.
6. Date of filing of the Form-V-Interim Accident N.A. Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form-VIB N.A. from the Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - Detailed Accident 02/11/20 Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on N.A. the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer N.A. by the Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance No Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on N.A. the part of the Designated officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the petitioner(s) to the offer N.A. of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the award 06/09/25
15. Whether the petitioner (s) was/were directed to Yes MACT No. 549/20 Master Yogesh Vs. Abhishek Singh Khushwah & Ors. Page No. 2/29 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.06 11:24:33 +0530 open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which claimant(s) was/were 02/11/20 directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook.
17. Date on which the claimant(s) produced the NA passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of the Jhuggi No. Claimant(s). J-35, Chunna Bhatti, Sarai Rohilla, Delhi-110005.
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) NA is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) was/were examined at NA the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
AWARD/JUDGMENT FACTUAL POSITION AND PLEADINGS
1. A DAR was filed on 02/11/2020 by the Investigating Officer in the presence of the parties. The said DAR was related to a motor vehicular accident dated 15/11/2019 in which one Master Yogesh S/o Sh. Raj Pal (hereinafter referred to as MACT No. 549/20 Master Yogesh Vs. Abhishek Singh Khushwah & Ors. Page No. 3/29 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.06 11:24:37 +0530 "petitioner") sustained grievous injuries. Subsequent to filing of DAR present petition U/s 166 r/w Section 140 of M.V. Act was seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 Lakhs in respect of injuries sustained by petitioner in a road traffic accident which took place on 15/11/2019 at about 8.45 AM at a spot near Sarai Rohilla Railway Station falling within the jurisdiction of PS Sarai Rohilla was filed. As per this petition, at the relevant date and time the injured minor petitioner was playing in front of his house/ Jhuggi No. J-35 Chuna Bhatti, Sarai Rohilla, Delhi-110005 in the meantime a Car bearing registration no. UP-14GT-7235 of white colour (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle") driven by the R-1 at a very high speed, rashly, negligently and without blowing any horn hit the petitioner/ injured as a result of which the petitioner received grievous injuries and he was immediately taken to Jeevan Mala Hospital, New Rohtak Road where he was medically examined vide MLC No. 247/19. It is further stated that the petitioner received multiple fracture injuries on his head beside other injuries and thus the petitioner become permanent disabled. It is further stated that the petitioner remained hospitalized in Jeevan Mala Hospital from 15/11/2019 to 19/04/2019 as indoor patient and remained undergoing treatment for about six months and Rs. 2,00,000/- has been spent on his treatment, medicines, diet, conveyance, etc. It is further stated that at the time of petitioner was 4-1/2 years was studying in Nursery Class. An FIR no. 349/19 PS Sarai Rohilla U/s 279/338 IPC was registered wherein MACT No. 549/20 Master Yogesh Vs. Abhishek Singh Khushwah & Ors. Page No. 4/29 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.06 11:24:40 +0530 it is stated that the accident took place on account of rashness and negligence of driver of the offending vehicle. As per petition, the petitioner was 4 years old at the time of accident and was a student. Petitioner claims that the offending vehicle was being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. R-1 is the driver of the offending vehicle. R-2 is the owner of the offending vehicle. R-3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle.
2. No written statement was filed by R-1 & R-2 and accordingly the right of R-1 & R-2 to file written statement was closed vide order dated 14/12/2022 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal.
3. R-3/Insurance Company filed a reply wherein it seeks to avoid liability on the ground that the offending vehicle driven by its driver did not have a valid and effective permit. However, it is admitted that at the relevant time the offending vehicle was covered by an insurance policy issued by itself.
ISSUES
4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed for consideration on 14/12/2022 by Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal:-
1.Whether the petitioner Master Yogesh Kumar suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 15/11/2019 at about 08.45 PM involving vehicle bearing MACT No. 549/20 Master Yogesh Vs. Abhishek Singh Khushwah & Ors. Page No. 5/29 PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.06 11:24:44 +0530 registration No. UP-14GT-7235 driven by the Respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently, owned by the Respondent No. 2 and insured with the Respondent No. 3? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation: If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
EVIDENCE
5. The father of minor petitioner examined himself as PW-1 in support of his claim. The father of petitioner filed an affidavit Ex PW-1/1 wherein he described the occurrence of incident in line with the facts mentioned in Para 1 of this award. He deposed that his son has sustained grievous injuries in the accident. PW-1 has relied upon the following documents viz:-
''Copy of Aadhar Card of PW-1 is Ex. PW-1/A; Copy of MLC and medical treatment document are Ex.PW-1/B (Colly);
Copy of DAR is Ex. PW-1/C;
Copy of medical bills are Ex.PW-1/D (Colly).'' 5.1 PW-1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R-1 as well as by Ld. Counsel for R-3/Insurance Company. In his cross-
examination he deposed that the accident took place on 15/11/2019 at about 8.35/40 PM at Sarai Rohilla Chuna Bhati, J-35, Delhi. He further deposed that he was going alognwtih the injured and he was holding his hand and they were going at the MACT No. 549/20 Master Yogesh Vs. Abhishek Singh Khushwah & Ors. Page No. 6/29 PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.06 11:24:48 +0530 corner of the street near tea stall. He denied the suggestion that the alleged offending vehicle was plying at a normal speed and his son came suddenly in front of the offending vehicle which resulted into the accident. He further denied the suggestion that his son not suffered permanent disability due to injuries of the accident.
5.2 Petitioner further examined one Dr. Ripunjoi Khataniar, MD(Psychiatry)/Sr. Resident, G.B. Pant Hospital(GIPMER), Delhi-110002 as PW-2. He deposed that he has brought the summoned record. Dr. S. Jena has deputed him on his behalf to attend the Court. On 28.03.2025, patient namely Master Yogesh Kumar was examined by the Disability Examination Board constituted by Medical Superintendent of their hospital. He further deposed that he has been deputed by Dr. S.Jena to produce the aforesaid record and give explanation, if required about the report. He further deposed that the psychiatric disability of the petitioner is 71%-99% which is severe disability and the patient would show behavioral disturbance in the form of increased motor activity, decreased attention, not maintaining eye contact, prefers to be alone, does not play with peers, hits peers or dogs, does not have much affection with father, goes with strangers easily, causes destruction of toys, mobile and other household items, breaking windows, burning clothes, not afraid of harmful things with delayed onset of sleep at around 2-3 AM. He further deposed that MACT No. 549/20 Master Yogesh Vs. Abhishek Singh Khushwah & Ors. Page No. 7/29 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.06 11:24:53 +0530 such behavioral disorder severely prejudicing the safety and security of the patient. He further deposed that the petitioner would be exposed to injuries always and the chances of returning to normal behavior in future are feeble. He further deposed that it can not be said with certainty that improvement would be forthcoming in future. He further deposed that the patient would be requiring an attendant all the time as he can not manage himself and he is required to be protected from accidents. He further proved the office records of the disability certificate and relied upon the copy of the disability certificate is already on record and same is Ex. PW-2/1 which bears signatures of Dr.S. Jena at point A. (The Office record matched, seen and returned).
5.3 PW-2 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for Respondent No.3/Insurance Company. In his cross-examination he deposed that all the behavioral disability has arisen after the accident and the patient has no history of behavior disorder. He further deposed that there is scope of improvement, however, there is no guarantee of the same and the time duration of improvement is unknown. He stated that the next assessment can be done after eight years from last assessment. He denied the suggestion that the patient can fully recover from the psychiatric disability. He further denied the suggestion that the present disability can not manifest itself into permanent disability. He further denied the suggestion that the patient does not require any attendant to take care of himself other than his family members.
MACT No. 549/20 Master Yogesh Vs. Abhishek Singh Khushwah & Ors. Page No. 8/29 Digitally signedPANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.06 11:24:57 +0530 5.4 PE was then closed.
6. R-3/ Insurance Company examined its official Ms. Sunidhi Mittal, Senior Executive, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd as R3-W1. She relied upon the following documents:-
''Ex.R3-W1/1 is the authority letter of R3W-1; Ex.R3-W1/2 is attested copy of insurance policy; Ex.R3-W1/3 and Ex. R3-W1/4 (Colly) are postal receipts;
Ex.R3-W1/5 and Ex.R3-W1/6 (Colly) are internet generated tracking reports' Ex.PW1/C is DAR.'' 6.1 R3-W1 was not cross-examined.
ARGUMENTS AND FINDINGS
7. Oral submissions were advanced by Ld. Counsel for the parties.
8. I have perused the record and my issue wise findings is as under:-ISSUE NO. 1
"Whether the petitioner Master Yogesh Kumar suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 15/11/2019 at about 08.45 PM involving vehicle bearing registration No. UP-14GT-7235 driven by the Respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently, owned by the Respondent No. 2 and insured with the Respondent No. 3? OPP. OPP. '' MACT No. 549/20 Master Yogesh Vs. Abhishek Singh Khushwah & Ors. Page No. 9/29 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.06 11:25:02 +0530
9. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court and in civil matters the facts are required to be established by preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable doubts as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is never as heavy as that is required in a criminal case, but in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and also recently in another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303.
10. As already discussed above, the father of petitioner examined himself as PW-1 in order to prove the factual averments regarding the occurrence of accident. PW-1 has clearly and categorically stated that at the relevant time, his minor son was playing in front of his house/ Jhuggi No. J-35 Chuna Bhatti, Sarai Rohilla, Delhi-110005 in the meantime a Car bearing registration no. UP-14GT-7235 of white colour (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle") driven by the R-1 at a very MACT No. 549/20 Master Yogesh Vs. Abhishek Singh Khushwah & Ors. Page No. 10/29 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.09.06 11:25:06 +0530 high speed, rashly, negligently and without blowing any horn hit his son as a result of which he received grievous injuries and he was immediately taken to Jeevan Mala Hospital, New Rohtak Road where he was medically examined vide MLC No. 247/19. He further deposed that his son received multiple fracture injuries on his head beside other injuries and thus he has become permanent disabled. He further deposed that his son remained hospitalized in Jeevan Mala Hospital from 15/11/2019 to 19/04/2019 as indoor patient and remained undergoing treatment for about six months and Rs. 2,00,000/- has been spent on his treatment, medicines, diet, conveyance, etc. He further deposed that at the time of accident his son was 4-1/2 years was studying in Nursery Class. He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R-1 as well as by R-3/ Insurance Company. However, nothing favourable came to respondents.
11. The very fact that R-1 has already been chargesheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279/338 IPC in the above criminal case/FIR in itself is a strong circumstance to support the above oral testimony of PW1 and the case of petitioner on this issue. The copies of FIR, Chargesheet, Site plan, Mechanical inspection reports of offending vehicle, MLC, Seizure Memos, Arrest Memo of R-1 also corroborate the oral testimony of PW1.
12. Besides the above, R-1 himself was the best witness MACT No. 549/20 Master Yogesh Vs. Abhishek Singh Khushwah & Ors. Page No. 11/29 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2025.09.06 11:25:11 +0530 who could have stepped into the witness box to challenge the depositions being made by PW-1 regarding the above accident and its manner etc., but he has not done so. Therefore, an adverse inference on this aspect is also required to be drawn against the respondents in view of the law laid down in case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.
13. In view of the above, it could be safely assumed that the offending vehicle driven by R-1 hit the petitioner at the relevant time.
14. Having ruled so, this Tribunal now proceeds to assess the wrongful act, neglect or default of R-1, if any, at the relevant time. Admittedly, R-1 has not explained the circumstances under which the offending vehicle hit the petitioner at the relevant time. In the absence of any evidence regarding any mechanical defect in the offending vehicle or any material depicting any negligent/sudden act or omission on the part of the petitioner at the relevant time, the only inference possible in the given facts and circumstances is that of neglect and default on the part of R-1 at the relevant time. In totality, R-1 could not bring on record any material which reflects inconsistency in the oral testimony of PW-1. As such, this Tribunal finds it appropriate to hold that the oral testimony of PW-1 is reliable and trustworthy. In view of the above discussion, MACT No. 549/20 Master Yogesh Vs. Abhishek Singh Khushwah & Ors. Page No. 12/29 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.09.06 11:25:15 +0530 this tribunal is constrained to hold R-1 guilty of gross neglect and default at the relevant time.
15. In view of the medical treatment documents available on record, no dispute is left regarding the nature of injuries sustained by petitioner in the above accident.
16. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal holds that the petitioner suffered grievous injuries on his person on account of neglect and default of R-1 at the relevant time. This issue thus stands decided against the respondents and in favour of the petitioner.
ISSUE NO. 2"Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?"
17. As the issue no.1 has been proved in affirmative and in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner has become entitled to be compensated for the injuries suffered in the above accident, but the computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be decided. Here it would be appropriate to mention that the petitioner was a minor on the date of accident. As such, the matter requires decision in accordance with the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand & Ors." AIR 2020 Supreme Court776'' MACT No. 549/20 Master Yogesh Vs. Abhishek Singh Khushwah & Ors. Page No. 13/29 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.06 11:25:39 +0530
(i) Pain and Suffering & Amenities of life
18. The petitioner suffered injuries on his head which caused severe damage to his head leading psychiatric/ psychological disability. As per medical documents, the petitioner has sustained 71%-99% (Seventy One Percent - Ninety One Percent)" Psychiatric/ Psychological disability. As per disability certificate no. (Ex. PW-2/1) bearing F.No.01-1033/MB/GIPMER/2024/23153 dated28/03/2025 issued by Govind Ballabh Pant Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education & Research (GIPMER), Govt of NCT of Delhi-110002 the petitioner has sustained 71% -99% (Seventy One Percent -Ninety One Percent)" Psychiatric/ Psychological disability. The aforementioned certificate was issued in terms of the directions of this Tribunal vide order dated 02/02/2023. Accordingly, the aforementioned disability certificate could be read in evidence in terms of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Union of India in Writ Petition (s) (Civil ) No (s). 534/2020 date of order 16/11/2021. It is not possible to quantify the compensation admissible to petitioner for the shock, pain and sufferings etc. which he actually suffered because of the above injuries, but as stated above, an effort has to be made to compensate him for the same in a just and reasonable manner. The medical examination of the petitioner continued for MACT No. 549/20 Master Yogesh Vs. Abhishek Singh Khushwah & Ors. Page No. 14/29 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.09.06 11:25:43 +0530 long owing to the nature of injuries in his head. Hence, keeping in view the extent and nature of the injuries suffered by petitioner and duration of the treatment taken by him etc., an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- is being awarded to him towards pain and sufferings during the said period of him treatment and immobility. Thus, he is awarded a total amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- under this head.
18.1 In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the nature of disability and the extended period of medical treatment, the petitioner is also granted a sum of Rs.
2,50,000/- towards loss of amenities of life.
(ii) Loss of earning due to disability
19. As per the Opinion of Medical Examination Ex. PW-2/1, the petitioner has suffered 71% 99% (Seventy One
-Ninety One Percent)" Psychiatric/ Psychological disability''. The petitioner was a child and has suffered injuries on his head. The petitioner was was a minor aged about 05 Years at the time of accident and as per Ex. PW-2/1 has suffered 71%-99% (Seventy One pence-Ninety One Percent)" Psychiatric/ Psychological disability and the condition is likely to improve and temporary in nature and reassessment is to be done after Eight Years''. However, from the testimony of PW-2 Dr. Ripunjoi Khataniar, MD(Psychiatry)/Sr. Resident, G.B. Pant Hospital(GIPMER), Delhi-110002 it is evident that there is very little scope of improvement on the behavioral aspect of the MACT No. 549/20 Master Yogesh Vs. Abhishek Singh Khushwah & Ors. Page No. 15/29 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.06 11:25:47 +0530 petitioner and the next assessment can only be done after eight years. Also, his testimony would show that the behavioral disturbance shown by the petitioner is having multiple facets ranging from self harming tendencies to destruction proclivity and loss of affection and love towards family. Further, his testimony would show that he is required to be managed or protected all the time by family members or an attendant to ensure his safety. PW-2 also stated that his chances to returning to normal behavior are feeble. Also, his testimony would show that the symptoms of behavioral disturbance are on rise from preceding years. As a matter of fact, the petitioner's behavioral pattern disclosed that he hurts himself and he cannot recognize his parents and he is showing destruction tendency due to the impact of severe disability. Such behavioral disorder severely prejudicing the safety and security of the petitioner. The nature of the disability has extinguished the scope of learning or education. Rather the parents has to give care to him round the clock and also continuous medication for his survival. Therefore, considering the medical disability and the behavioral pattern shown by petitioner his case is of 100% functional disability. His IQ has reduced to the lowest level. No amount of money can compensate this child for the injuries sustained by him as he can never be put back in the same position like normal child, therefore, compensation aspect in view of the judgment 'Kajal Vs Jagdish Chand AIR 2020 SCC 776 (Supra)' is being followed. Considering the mandate of the said judgment, the MACT No. 549/20 Master Yogesh Vs. Abhishek Singh Khushwah & Ors. Page No. 16/29 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.06 11:25:51 +0530 petitioner who has been deprived of education following the effect of his injuries would have acquired normal condition if he had not met with an accident. Therefore, for the purpose of computation of compensation, the Minimum Wages payable to a Skilled Person in Delhi at the time of accident i.e. 15/11/2019 which were Rs. 17,991/- is considered. This amount he would have earned upon becoming major and also 40% future prospects have been considered. Applying the multiplier of 18 it works out to Rs. 38,86,056/- (Rs.17,991/- X 140/100/- X 12 X 18).
(iii) Medical and incidental expenses during the period of hospitalization
20. No bill regarding treatment has been filed by injured. It is common knowledge that generally people during the treatment do not maintain the bills etc as they are not aware of this benevolent legislation having provisions for compensation. Keeping in view the overall circumstances, I hereby grant a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses.
(iv) Loss of studies
21. In view of the medical record placed on record by the petitioner and to the extent of 71% 99% (Seventy One Perceent - Ninety One Percent) Psychiatric/ Psychological disability suffered by the petitioner and the period of treatment it could be safely presumed that the petitioner is not in a position to continue studies even in future. The same is great set back to the child. As such, the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.
MACT No. 549/20 Master Yogesh Vs. Abhishek Singh Khushwah & Ors. Page No. 17/29 Digitally signedPANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.06 11:25:54 +0530 5,00,000/- under this head.
(v) Loss of Marriage Prospects
22. Admittedly, petitioner had to undergo a lot of trauma and pain on account of the above accident when he was just 5 years old. He also suffered 71%-99% (Seventy One pence-Ninety One Percent)" Psychiatric/ Psychological disability. This Tribunal could not turn a blind eye to the fact that the above disability is very much likely to affect the marriage prospects of the petitioner, given the existing social norms of our society at large. Therefore, considering the nature of injuries suffered by him which had impacted his future marriage prospects to a greater extent, petitioner is granted a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- under this head as well.
(vi) Future Medical Treatment
23. In view of the medical record placed on record by the petitioner, it is evident that his treatment would continue in future also and therefore the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- under this head.
(vii) Future Attendant Charges
24. As a matter of fact, the petitioner is required to be taken care of by an attendant all the time given his physical condition and mental health and therefore multiplier system is considered in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of "Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand & Ors." AIR 2020 Supreme Court 776'(Supra)'' for granting the MACT No. 549/20 Master Yogesh Vs. Abhishek Singh Khushwah & Ors. Page No. 18/29 Digitally signed PANKAJ SHARMA by PANKAJ SHARMA Date: 2025.09.06 11:25:58 +0530 attendant charges. Since, the child would be needing attendant through out his life as his chances of recovery are almost negligible in near future. Therefore, a pragmatic approach has to be adopted for quantifying the attendant charges by taking a practical view of the remuneration of an attendant. The cost of an attendant is deteremined as Rs.5,000/- per month for the purpose of computation of compesnation. Accordingly, the attendant charges have to be quantified following the computation which is as under:-
Rs. 5,000/- X 12 X 18 (multiplier)= Rs. 10,80,000/-
Issue No.3/Relief
25. The petitioner is held entitled to recover an amount of Rs.69,76,056/-(Rupees Sixty Nine Lakhs Seventy Six Thousand and Fifty Six only) ( Rs.2,50,000/- + Rs.2,50,000/- +Rs.38,86,056/- + Rs. 10,000/- + Rs.5,00,000/- + Rs.5,00,000/- + 5,00,000/- + Rs.10,80,000/-) only along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of DAR i.e 02/11/2020 from the respondents. Since no interim compensation has been awarded, therefore no deduction is applicable.
RELEASE
26. Petitioner did not bother to appear before this Tribunal for recording his statement regarding financial needs and requirements.
26.1 Out of the awarded amount, Petitioner is awarded a MACT No. 549/20 Master Yogesh Vs. Abhishek Singh Khushwah & Ors. Page No. 19/29 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.09.06 11:26:02 +0530 sum of Rs.90,00,000- (Rupees Ninety Lakhs Only) and the said amount is directed to be kept with State Bank of India, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in MACAD in the form of 300 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 300 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 35, 36 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in his savings/MACT Claims SB Account as and when he furnishes the details of his bank account which is near the place of his residence to the Bank Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi under intimation to the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal. The remaining amount of Rs.10,10,640/-(Rupees Ten Lakhs Ten Thousand Six Hundred and Forty Only) is also directed to be released into his above said account, which can be withdrawn and utilized by the Petitioner.
27. The Bank(s) shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the petitioner(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the petitioner(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s). The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the SBI, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished MACT No. 549/20 Master Yogesh Vs. Abhishek Singh Khushwah & Ors. Page No. 20/29 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.06 11:26:06 +0530 by the bank to the petitioner(s). The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credit by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the petitioner(s) near the place of their residence. No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of this Tribunal.
LIABILITY
28. So far as the plea on behalf of R-3/ Insurance Company is that the R-1/ driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a permit to ply the same at the time at the time accident. The said plea is baseless as All India Authorization of vehicle bearing registration no. UP-14-GT-7235 was valid from 05/04/2018 to 04/04/2023. Hence, the plea so raised on behalf of R-3/ Insurance Company is hereby declined.
29. As already stated above, R-1 being the driver and principal tortfeasor and R-2 being owner of the offending vehicle, and also being vicariously liable for the acts of R-1, are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to petitioner. However, since the offending vehicle was insured with R-3 at the time of accident, therefore, R-3/ Insurance Company is liable to indemnify R-2 in respect of above liability. As such R-3 is directed to deposit the above award amount within 30 days from the date of this Award by way of NEFT or RTGS mode in the account of this Tribunal MACT No. 549/20 Master Yogesh Vs. Abhishek Singh Khushwah & Ors. Page No. 21/29 PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA 11:26:10 +0530 Date: 2025.09.06 maintained with SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (account holder's name-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal 02 Central, A/C No. 40743576901, IFSC Code SBIN0000726) under intimation to the petitioner/ injured and this Tribunal in terms of the format for remittance of compensation as provided in Divisional Manager Vs. Rajesh, 2016 SCC Online Mad. 1913 (and reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the orders dated 16.03.2021 and 16.11.2021 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors) along with interest @ 9% per annum till the deposit of the compensation as awarded, failing which it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
30. A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of cost. Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. Further Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
MACT No. 549/20 Master Yogesh Vs. Abhishek Singh Khushwah & Ors. Page No. 22/29Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.09.06 11:26:13 +0530
31. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurer as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
32. Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report and put up the same on 06.10.2025 PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.06 11:26:17 +0530 Announced in the open court (DR. PANKAJ SHARMA) on this 06.09.2025 PO MACT-02 (CENTRAL) DELHI MACT No. 549/20 Master Yogesh Vs. Abhishek Singh Khushwah & Ors. Page No. 23/29 PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA 11:26:20 +0530 Date: 2025.09.06 FORM - XVI, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A) SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE
1. Date of accident : 15/11/2019
2. Name of the injured : Master Yogesh
3. Age of the injured : 05 years
4. Occupation of the injured: Student
5. Income of the injured : NIL
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken : Different Hospitals
8. Period of Hospitalization: Different Periods
9. Whether any permanent disability ?
If yes, give details : 71%-99%
10. Computation of Compensation
S. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
No.
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on Rs.10,000/-
treatment
MACT No. 549/20 Master Yogesh Vs. Abhishek Singh Khushwah & Ors. Page No. 24/29
Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.09.06
11:26:23 +0530
(ii) Expenditure on NIL
conveyance
(iii) Expenditure on special NIL
diet
(iv) Cost of NIL
nursing/attendant
(v) Loss of earning capacity NIL
(vi) Loss of Studies Rs.5,00,000/-
(vii) Any other loss which Rs.5,00,000/-
may require any special
treatment or aid to the AND
injured for the rest of
her life (Future Medical Rs.10,80,000/-
treatment & Attendant
Charges)
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for NIL
mental and physical
shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.2,50,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.2,50,000/-
MACT No. 549/20 Master Yogesh Vs. Abhishek Singh Khushwah & Ors. Page No. 25/29
PANKAJ Digitally signed by
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.09.06
11:26:27 +0530
(iv) Disfiguration NIL
(v) Loss of marriage Rs. 5,00,000/-
prospects
(vi) Loss of earning, NIL
inconvenience,
hardships,
disappointment,
frustration, mental
stress, dejectment and
unhappiness in future
life etc.
(vii) NIL
Discomfort,
Inconvenience and Loss
of earnings to the
Parents during the
period of hospitalization
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(I) Percentage of disability 71%-99% assessed and nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or NIL loss of expectation of life span on account of disability MACT No. 549/20 Master Yogesh Vs. Abhishek Singh Khushwah & Ors. Page No. 26/29 PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.06 11:26:31 +0530
(iii) Percentage of loss of 100% earning capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - Rs.38,86,056/-
(Income x % Earning Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL Rs.69,76,056/-
COMPENSATION
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9% per annum MACT No. 549/20 Master Yogesh Vs. Abhishek Singh Khushwah & Ors. Page No. 27/29 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.06 11:26:34 +0530
16. Interest amount up to Rs.30,34,584/- (rounded off) the date of award
17. Total amount including Rs.1,00,10,640/-
interest
18. Award amount released Rs.10,10,640/-
19. Award amount kept in As per award FDRs
20. Mode of disbursement Mentioned in the award of the award amount to the claimant (s)
21. Next date for 06/10/2025 compliance of the award MACT No. 549/20 Master Yogesh Vs. Abhishek Singh Khushwah & Ors. Page No. 28/29 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.06 11:26:38 +0530 CONCLUSION:-
1. As per award dated 06.09.2025.
2. A separate file is ordered to be prepared by the Nazir with directions to put up the same on 06.10.2025.Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.06 11:26:43 +0530 (DR. PANKAJ SHARMA) PO MACT-02 (CENTRAL) DELHI/06.09.2025 MACT No. 549/20 Master Yogesh Vs. Abhishek Singh Khushwah & Ors. Page No. 29/29 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.06 11:26:49 +0530