Delhi District Court
Subhash vs Krishan Kumar And Ors on 3 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHILASH MALHOTRA
PRESIDING OFFICER: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-02 ,PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:
SHUBHASH Vs. KRISHAN KR. & ORS.
MACT NO. 241/2017
1. Smt. Sumitra,
W/o Late Sh. Subhash
2. Sh. Pankaj,
S/o Late Sh. Subhash
3. Sh. Ankit
S/o Late Sh. Subhash
4. Ms. Nisha Rani
S/o Late Sh. Subhash
5. Sh. Ravinder
S/o Late Sh. Subhash
All R/o H. No. 1836, Ward No. 9, Baliali,
Bhiwani, Haryana-127032.
.... Petitioners
Versus
1. Krishan Kumar
S/o Sh. Chandgi Ram
R/o Village- Dooma, Tehsil Farrukh Nagar,
Gurugram, Haryana
.... Driver
MACT 53/18 Page. 1 of 30
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
2. M/S Afria Brothers Co. Ltd.
Off. At Village Babra Bakipur,
Jamalpur, Gurugram-122001.
.... Owner
3. National Insurance Company Ltd.
Office At: 808-809, Kailash, 26
Kasturba Gandi Marg,
New Delhi-110001
....Insurance Company/
Respondent no. 3
Date of accident 23.11.2016
Date of filing Claim Petition 09.05.2017
Date of framing of issues 15.12.2017
Date of concluding arguments 19.11.2025
Date of decision 03.12.2025
AWARD/JUDGMENT
Index to the Judgment
I. BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE CLAIMANT(s).........................................4
II. FRAMING OF ISSUES................................................................................6
III. EVIDENCE LED BY THE PARTIES..........................................................7
IV. ARGUMENTS OF COUNSELS OF THE PARTIES..................................8
V. ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO................................10
(a) Issue No.1: Whether injured Subhash expired on account of injuries
sustained in the accident which occurred on account of rash and negligent
driving by the respondent driver?..................................................................10
i. The evidence on record qua negligence:......................................10
ii. Preponderance of probabilities:....................................................11
MACT 53/18 Page. 2 of 30
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
iii. Finding:........................................................................................ 12
(b) Issue No.2: Whether claimant is entitled to compensation, and to what
amount?......................................................................................................... 12
i. Principles qua assessment of compensation:................................12
ii. Expenditure on Treatment (Pecuniary):.......................................14
iii. Expenditure on Conveyance & Special Diet (Pecuniary):...........15
iv. Expenditure on Attendant (Pecuniary).........................................15
v. Loss of Earnings during the period of treatment (Pecuniary):.....16
vi. Compensation for Mental & Physical shock, Pain & Suffering and
Loss of amenities (Non-Pecuniary):.........................................................17
vii. Loss of Marriage Prospects (Non-Pecuniary):.............................17
viii. Disfiguration (Non-Pecuniary):....................................................18
ix. Loss of earnings, inconvenience, hardships, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress and unhappiness in future life etc. (Non-
Pecuniary):................................................................................................ 18
(c) Issue No.3: Relief................................................................................ 19
i. Amount of Award:........................................................................19
(d) Issue No.3: Relief................................................................................ 19
i. Amount of Award:........................................................................19
ii. Rate of Interest:............................................................................19
VI. DEPOSIT OF AWARD& RELEASE/APPORTIONMENT.......................20
i. Deposit of Award:.........................................................................20
VII......................................................................................................LIABILITY
22
VIII....SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY
CASES............................................................................................................... 25
IX. COMPLIANCE QUA PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME.........................28
MACT 53/18 Page. 3 of 30
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
I. BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE CLAIMANT(s)
1. The facts as asseverated by the claimant are hereby succinctly
recapitulated: A road accident occurred on 23.11.2016 at about 1:00 PM,
when the injured Mr. Subhash was going in his truck bearing no. HR
39D 3102 reached near Wazirpur Toll Gurugram, the offending vehicle
bearing no. HR 99T 7463 was driven in rash manner by respondent no.1
(R-1) Krishan Kumar, was owned by respondent no. 2 (R-2) M/S Afria
Brothers Pvt. Ltd. and was insured by respondent no. 3 (R-3) National
Insurance Company Ltd.. The accident resulted in grievous injury to
petitioner Mr. Shubhash.
2. The present case was registered pursuant to the claim petition filed by
Mr. Shubhash. No DAR was filed in this case as the accident had
occurred outside Delhi.
3. The claim petition was filed on 09.05.2017. On 15.12.2017, my Ld
Predecessor framed the issues. In the claim petition, there was a
typographical error in the registration number of the offending vehicle.
The application U/o 6 Rule 17CPC was allowed by my Ld. Predecessor
vide order dated 12.12.2022.
4. By order dated 08.10.2018, My Ld. Predecessor issued directions to
constitute medical board to ascertain the magnitude of the permanent
disability of the petitioner. A disability certificate dated 30.01.2019 was
received from the hospital wherein the temporary disability was
measured as 40%. Thereafter, by order dated 14.02.2020, my Ld.
Predecessor again ordered the medical board to access the magnitude of
the permanent disability. No such report was filed. Thereafter, an
MACT 53/18 Page. 4 of 30
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
application under Order 22 rule 3 was moved to implead the legal heirs
of Mr. Shubhash as he died on 12.12.2022. The application was allowed
on 03.12.2022.
5. In evidence, Petitioner Sh. Shubhash examined himself as PW-1, Dr.
Vijay Kumar Jain as PW2. Insurance Company examined Sh.
Raghunath Panwar, Assitant Manager (Legal) as R3W1 and Sh. Sunil
SI, Transport Department as R3W2. No evidence was led by R-1 and
R-2.
6. Investigation: A FIR bearing no. 0746/2016, under Section 279/338 IPC
was lodged at PS Sector-10, Gurugram on the complaint made by Mr.
Shubhash. After investigation the police had filed the charge sheet
under the aforesaid sections against the driver of the vehicle/R-1 Mr.
Krishan Kumar S/o Mr. Chandigi Ram. In the charge sheet, it is
recorded that the offending vehicle broke the divider and hit the vehicle
driven by the petitioner.
7. During investigation, site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared,
medical documents were collected and offending vehicle was seized.
The driver (R-1) Sh. Krishan Kumar was arrested and thereafter
released on bail. On completion of investigation, chargesheet under
sections 279/338 IPC was filed qua the driver.
8. During proceedings before this Tribunal, written statements were filed
on behalf of respondent no. 1 (driver) as well as respondent no. 3
Insurance company.
MACT 53/18 Page. 5 of 30
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
II. FRAMING OF ISSUES
9. Vide order dated 15.12.2017, following issues were framed by this
Tribunal:-
"1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in
the accident which occurred on 23.11.2016 at
about 01:00 PM, Near Wazirpur Toll, Gurugram,
Haryana caused by rash and negligent driving of
vehicle No. HR-99T-7436 being driven by
respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no.2 and
insured by respondent no.3? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount and from
whom? OPP
3. Relief."
Note: Vehicle Number to be read as HR-99T-7463 in terms of order
dated 12.12.2022.
10. Recording of evidence: The present case initially recorded the
testimony of PW1 and PW2 before the Tribunal. Thereafter, in
compliance of the mandate issued in the case of judgment titled Gohar
Mohammed v Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & Ors.
(2023) 4 SCC 381 the local commissioner was appointed to record the
evidence. The Local Commissioner examined R3w1 and R3W2 that is
the witnesses produced by the Insurance Company. R1 and R2 did not
led any evidence.
MACT 53/18 Page. 6 of 30
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
III. EVIDENCE LED BY THE PARTIES
11. In the proceedings conducted before, following witnesses were
examined, succinct testimony whereof is as follows:
12.PW1 Mr. Shubhash is the injured. He tendered his evidence by way of
affidavit as Ex. PW1/A. He relied upon following documents:
(a) Attested copies of medical treatment records and bills as Ex.
PW1/1 (Colly);
(b) Copy of DL as Ex. PW1/2(OSR);
(c) Copy of Aadhar Card as Ex. PW1/3(OSR).
(d) Certified/attested copies of the criminal record as Ex.
PW1/4.
13.In his testimony, PW1 Mr. Shubhash stated that on 23.11.2016 at about
01:00 PM was going towards Gurugram in his truck bearing no. HR 39D
3102. When he reached near Wazirpur Toll Near Gurugram offending
vehicle No. HR 99T 7463 which was driven in rash manner at high
speed came from the front side/ wrong side and hit his vehicle due to
which he sustained injuries. He stated that he is working with M/S
Himalya Construction Company at Gurugram, Haryana and earning
salary of about 15,000/- p.m.
14.PW2 Dr. Vijay Kumar Jain proved the disability certificate dated
30.01.2019 which is Ex. PW2/A. He stated that the injured suffered
40% temporary disability in relation to right lower limb.
15.R1 and R2 did not led any evidence.
MACT 53/18 Page. 7 of 30
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
16.R3W1 Mr. Raghunath Panwar, Asst. Manager Legal, Insurance
Company tendered his affidavit in chief which is affidavit which
R3W1/A. He proved on record documents :
(a) Copy of authority letter as Ex. R3W1/1 (OSR);
(b) Certified copy/original policy along with its terms and
conditions as Ex. R3W1/2(OSR) ;
(c) Copy of investigation report as Ex. R3W1/3(OSR)
(d) Copies of the notices under Order 12 Rule 8 of the CPC,
1908 as Ex. R3W1/4 and Ex. R3W1/5(OSR)
(e) Original Postal Receipts as Ex. R3W1/6(Colly)
R3W1 stated that the insurance policy was valid and it was a
comprehensive insurance policy.
17. R3W2 is Mr. Sunil SI transport, RTA Office, Gurugram, proved
documents:
(a) Authority letter as Ex. R3W2/1;
(b) Copy of the report as Ex. R3W2/2(OSR) ;
He stated that the permit was issued in respect of the vehicle but it was
not valid on 23.11.2016.
18.Financial statement of the LRs of the injured/claimant was recorded on
19.11.2025.
IV. ARGUMENTS OF COUNSELS OF THE PARTIES
19.Ld. Counsel for the claimant submitted that they have filed the copy of
FIR and charge-sheet. He submits that the said record clearly shows that
the offending vehicle bearing no. HR 99T 7463 was seized during the
MACT 53/18 Page. 8 of 30
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
investigation and later on released on Superdari. He submits that the
chargesheet in that case was already filed against the driver R1 Mr.
Krishan Kumar u/s 279/338 IPC which clearly establishes the rash
driving on part of the offending vehicle.
20. It is submitted that PW1 injured Mr. Shubhash in his testimony also
stated that the offending vehicle was driven in rash manner and came
from the wrong side and hit his vehicle.
21. It is submitted that the death has been caused due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. He submitted that the
vehicle was insured on the date of accident and the insurance company
is liable to pay the compensation.
22.He submitted that though they have claimed the income of injured
around 15,000/- p.m but in the calculation sheet filed before this
Tribunal they have considered the minimum wages for the purpose of
the calculation. He submitted that the minimum be considered for the
purpose of awarding compensation.
23.R-1 and R-2 filed their written statement and were proceeded ex-parte
vide order dated 01.08.2022. R1 and R2 in their written statement have
taken a plea that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of the injured. They did not laid any evidence to support their
plea and it remained not proved.
24.R-3 Insurance Company admitted the factum of insurance, however, has
taken a plea of breach of policy conditions as the vehicle was without
any permit on the date of accident.
MACT 53/18 Page. 9 of 30
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
V. ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO
(a) Issue No.1: Whether injured Subhash expired on account of injuries
sustained in the accident which occurred on account of rash and negligent
driving by the respondent driver?
i. The evidence on record qua negligence:
25. In order to appreciate the issue regarding negligence, it will be prudent
to refer to a recent decision dated 25.02.2025, passed in Ranjeet & Anr v
Abdul Nayem Keb & Anr in SLP(C) 10351/2019 , it was held in
trenchant terms as thus:
"It is settled in law that once a charge sheet has been
filed and the driver has been held negligent, no
further evidence is required to prove that the bus
was being negligently driven by the bus driver. Even
if the eyewitnesses are not examined, that will not
be fatal to prove the death of the deceased due
to negligence of the bus driver."
26. Claimant has placed on record the certified copy of charge-sheet in FIR
no. 0746/2016, PS Sector-10, Gurugram. Record shows that the charge-
sheet u/s 279/338 was filed in the present case against the driver Mr.
Krishan. The charge sheet records that the accused driver/R-1 broke the
divider of the road and hit against the vehicle driven by the injured.
PW-1 Mr. Shubhash/injured in his testimony also stated that offending
vehicle came form the wrong side. He was not cross examined and his
testimony remained unrebutted.
27.
28. The charge sheet, evidence of the eye witness as well as medical record
proves the place of occurrence and it is established that the deceased
MACT 53/18 Page. 10 of 30
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
died in road accident due to rash driving of vehicle number HR 99T
7136 driven by R1 Mr. Krihsan.
29. The insurance company has admitted the fact that the offending vehicle
was insured on the date of accident.
ii. Preponderance of probabilities:
30.It is trite law that in a proceeding before the Claims Tribunal, the
claimant does not have to establish negligence on the part of the driver
respondent beyond reasonable doubt. The standards of establishing
negligence is predicated on preponderance of probabilities. In the
present case too, negligence has been established on this principle.
31.In this context, it would be useful to peruse Mathew Alexander v. Mohd.
Shafi, (2023) 13 SCC 510 wherein it was observed as thus:
"In this context, we could refer to the judgments of
this Court in N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai
Ammal [N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai
Ammal, (1980) 3 SCC 457 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 774] ,
wherein the plea that the criminal case had ended in
acquittal and that, therefore, the civil suit must
follow suit, was rejected. It was observed that
culpable rashness under Section 304-AIPC is more
drastic than negligence under the law of torts to
create liability. Similarly, in Bimla
Devi v. Himachal RTC [Bimla Devi v. Himachal
RTC, (2009) 13 SCC 530 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ)
189 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1101] ("Bimla Devi"), it
was observed that in a claim petition filed under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the
Tribunal has to determine the amount of fair
compensation to be granted in the event an accident
has taken place by reason of negligence of a driver
of a motor vehicle. A holistic view of the evidence
has to be taken into consideration by the Tribunal
and strict proof of an accident caused by a
particular vehicle in a particular manner need not be
MACT 53/18 Page. 11 of 30
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
established by the claimants. The claimants have to
establish their case on the touchstone of
preponderance of probabilities. The standard of
proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied
while considering the petition seeking
compensation on account of death or injury in a
road traffic accident. To the same effect is the
observation made by this Court in Dulcina
Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz [Dulcina
Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC
646 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 73 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri)
13] which has referred to the aforesaid judgment
in Bimla Devi [Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC
(2009) 13 SCC 530."
iii. Finding:
32.In view of foregoing discussion, it stands proved on the touchstone of
preponderance of probabilities that the aforesaid accident took place due
to rash and negligent driving of the transgressing/offending vehicle
bearing registration no. HR 99T 7463 and the said vehicle at that time
was driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured
by respondent no.3. Hence, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the
claimant and against the respondents.
(b) Issue No.2: Whether claimant is entitled to compensation, and to what
amount?
i. Principles qua assessment of compensation:
33. Before adverting to the submissions of the counsels in this regard, it
would be apposite to refer to the law of the land qua this aspect. In terms
of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, the compensation which
is to be awarded by this Tribunal is required to be 'just'. The law has been
MACT 53/18 Page. 12 of 30
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar &
Anr. (2011) 1 SCC 343,
34. In Raj Kumar (supra) the heads under which compensation is to be
calculated was expounded as thus :
"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.
MACT 53/18 Page. 13 of 30
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the
injured would have made had he not been injured,
comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent
disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a
consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of
marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal
longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will
be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is
only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific
medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the
claimant, that compensation will be granted under
any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to
loss of future earnings on account of permanent
disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities
(and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of
expectation of life."
35. Having considered the ratio of the aforementioned judgment, the
compensation payable to the claimant is assessed under the heads mentioned in
the succeeding paragraphs.
ii. Expenditure on Treatment (Pecuniary):
36. In his affidavit Ex PW1/A, the claimant has tendered on record the medical
record Ex. PW1/1 and the certified copy of the record of the criminal case. As
per the MLC injured suffered grievous injury. As per the statement given by the
Medical witness PW-2 Injured suffered 40% temporary disability in relation to
MACT 53/18 Page. 14 of 30
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
lower right limb. Thereafter the injured died and his permanent disability could
not be ascertained.
37. The claimant has tendered on record his medical bills as Ex PW1/1. Ld
Counsel for claimant contended that Rs 27,328/- were spent on medical
expenses. The Said bills remained unrebutted.
38. Thus, in view of the assertions of the claimant coupled with the medical bills,
the expenditure on medical treatment is hereby quantified as Rs 27,328/-.
iii. Expenditure on Conveyance & Special Diet (Pecuniary):
39. Ld Counsel for claimant contended that Rs 25,000/- each were spent on
Conveyance and Special Diet. Ld Counsel for the respondent/Insurance
Company disputed the quantum of the same. Under these circumstances, when
the injured has suffered grievous injuries the expenses claimed are reasonable
and accordingly, the expenditure on conveyance and Special Diet is hereby
quantified as Rs 50,000/-. (Rs 25,000/- each)
iv. Expenditure on Attendant (Pecuniary)
40. Ld Counsel for claimant contended that Rs 25,000/- were spent on engaging
the services of an Attendant. Ld Counsel for the respondent/Insurance
Company disputed the quantum of the same. Under these circumstances, when
the injured has suffered grievous injuries the expenses claimed are reasonable
and accordingly, the expenditure on Attendant is hereby quantified as Rs
25,000/- as the claimant remained under treatment for a period around six
months.
Cost of Artificial Limb and earning capacity:
MACT 53/18 Page. 15 of 30
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
41. Not claimed.
v. Loss of Earnings during the period of treatment (Pecuniary):
42. Ld. Counsel for claimant contended that the claimant did not attend his duties
for a period of 06 months since the date of the accident. It is the case of the
claimant that he was earning around Rs. 15,000/- P.M. However, in the
compensation calculation minimum wages have been claimed. The minium
wages @ 8,897/- p.m. for the semi-skilled category is claimed as injured was a
commercial vehicle driver. The rate of wages is not disputed by the insurance
company. As per circular No. IR-2/2016/40727-883 dated 21.10.2016 the
minimum wages for Semi-skilled category prevalent on the date of accident in
Haryana was Rs.8,897/-. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased is
quantified as Rs.8,897/- p.m. Since the claimant was indisposed for about 06
months, the amount awarded under this head is quantified as Rs 8,897/- (Rs
8,897/- x 6)= 53,382/-.
43. Thus, the total amount awarded under Pecuniary damages is:
Sr. No Details Amount
1. Expenditure on Medical 27,328/-
treatment
2. Expenditure on Conveyance & 50,000/-
Special Diet
3. Expenditure on Attendant 25,000/-
4. Cost of artificial limb Not Claimed
5. Loss of earning capacity Not Claimed
6. Loss of earning during the period 53,382/-
MACT 53/18 Page. 16 of 30
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
treatment i.e. Minimum wages
for six months.
(Rs 8,897/- x 6)
Total Pecuniary Damage 1,55,710/-
vi. Compensation for Mental & Physical shock, Pain & Suffering and Loss
of amenities (Non-Pecuniary):
44. As stated above, the claimant had suffered grievous injuries. This Tribunal is
conscious of the fact that no amount of money can erase the trauma and grief
that the victim has suffered, or the dignity and confidence that was shattered.
No amount of money can compensate the agony that the victim has undergone,
but it is hoped that some compensation can go a long way in alleviating a bit of
the suffering that he has endured. An e a r n e s t effort has to be made to
compensate him for the same in a just and reasonable manner. Hence, keeping
in view the extent and nature of the injuries suffered by the claimant and
duration of the treatment taken by him etc., the following
(i)Rs. 20,000/- for Pain and suffering, and
(ii) Rs. 20,000/- for mental and physical shock undergone
(iii) Rs 10,000/- for Loss of amenities.
45. Thus, he is hereby awarded total amount of Rs 50,000/- under this head.
vii. Loss of Marriage Prospects (Non-Pecuniary):
46. The petitioner has not claimed any amount under this head and therefore no
amount is awarded under this head.
MACT 53/18 Page. 17 of 30
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
viii. Disfiguration (Non-Pecuniary):
47.There is no proof on record that the injuries caused any disfiguration. Hence,
no amount is being awarded to the claimant under this head.
ix. Loss of earnings, inconvenience, hardships, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress and unhappiness in future life etc. (Non-Pecuniary):
48. Not claimed.
49. Thus, the total amount awarded under Non-Pecuniary damages is:
Sr. No Details Amount
1. Compensation for Mental & Rs. 20,000/-
Physical shock
2. Pain & Suffering Rs. 20,000/-
3. Loss of amenities Rs. 10,000/-
4. Loss of Marriage Prospects Not claimed
5. Disfiguration Nil
6. Loss of earnings, Nil
inconvenience, hardships,
disappointment, frustration,
mental stress and
unhappiness in future life
etc.
Total non-pecuniary Rs. 50,000/-
damages
MACT 53/18 Page. 18 of 30
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
(c) Issue No.3: Relief.
i. Amount of Award:
50. Thus, the total amount of award, after adding Pecuniary damages (Rs
1,55,710/-) and Non Pecuniary damages (Rs 50,000/-) amounts to Rs
2,05,710/-. The amount of compensation is quantified as Rs. 2,05,710/-
51. Thus, the claimant is awarded a sum of Rs. 2,05,710/- along with 9% interest
per annum from the date of filing of claim petition. The rate of interest has been
calculated in terms of the succeeding paragraphs.
(d) Issue No.3: Relief.
i. Amount of Award:
52.Thus, the claimant is awarded as sum of Rs 2,05,710/- along with 9% interest
per annum from the date of filing of claim petition. The rate of interest has been
calculated in terms of the succeeding paragraphs.
ii. Rate of Interest:
53. It was contended by Ld Counsel for the respondent insurance company that the
amount of interest ought to at @7.5%, in accordance with the general prevalent
practice in Courts. However, Ld Counsel for the claimant sought 9% as the rate
of interest.
54. In order to adjudicate these rival claims, recourse can be had to Erudhaya Priya
v State Transport Corporation 2020 SCC OnLine SC 601 wherein the aspect of
rate of interest was categorically enunciated as thus:
(c) The third and the last aspect is the
interest rate claimed as 12%
"15.In respect of the aforesaid, the appellant
has watered down the interest rate during the
MACT 53/18 Page. 19 of 30
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
course of hearing to 9% in view of the judicial
pronouncements including in the Jagdish
case (supra). On this aspect, once again, there
was no serious dispute raised by the learned
counsel for the respondent once the claim was
confined to 9% in line with the interest rates
applied by this Court"
55.Ergo, the amount of compensation/award amount will be payable by the
respondent insurance company with simple interest @ 9% p.a from the date of
filing of the claim petition/DAR till actual realisation. The date of filing of
petition is 09.05.2017 therefore the amount of Interest is calculated at @ 9 %
from the date of filing of petition i.e. Rs Rs. 1,57,368/- for a period of 102
months. Thus, the total amount of award is Rs. 3,63,078/-.
56.It is also clarified that in case the interest of petitioner was stopped or excluded
during the present inquiry proceedings, same is liable to be adjusted from the
total interest calculated on the Award amount. Similarly, amount awarded and
released as interim Award, if any, during pendency of the case, be deducted
from the total compensation.
VI. DEPOSIT OF AWARD& RELEASE/APPORTIONMENT
i. Deposit of Award:
57.In terms of the mandate of order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) the
respondent Insurance Company/driver/owner shall deposit the award amount
or transfer the same by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS directly to the bank account of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in UCO Bank, Patiala House Courts within
30 days of the award. The respondent(s) held liable to pay compensation by the
Claims Tribunal shall give notice of deposit of the compensation amount to
MACT 53/18 Page. 20 of 30
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
the claimant(s) and shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal
with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days of the
deposit with the interest upto the date of notice of deposit to the claimant(s)
with a copy to their counsel.
58.Release: In the present matter, 100% of the award amount be released
immediately to the legal heirs of the deceased / victim as follows:
Sr. Name Relations with Percentage Mode of
No. Deceased share of Disbursement
each legal
heir
1. Ms. Wife 80% Through Electronic
Sumitra Bank Transfer
2. Sh. Pankaj Son 5% Through Electronic
Bank Transfer
3. Sh. Ankit Son 5% Through Electronic
Kumar Bank Transfer
4. Ms. Nisha Daughter 5% Through Electronic
Rani Bank Transfer
5. Sh. Son 5% Through Electronic
Ravinder Bank Transfer
59. The Nodal officer of the bank shall ensure disbursement of the award within 3
weeks of receipt thereof by email or otherwise.
60. The disbursement to the claimant is, however, subject to the addition of future
interest till deposit proportionately and also deduction of proportionate tax on
the interest amount or amount of interim award, if any, to/from his share.
MACT 53/18 Page. 21 of 30
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
(a) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along
with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on
the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance
of clause above.
VII. LIABILITY
61. Insurance has taken a defense that there was breach of policy conditions as the
vehicle was driven without any permit. R3W2 Mr. Sunil, SI from the Transport
Department, Gurugram stated that permit issued in respect of the vehicle but
was not valid on 23.11.2016 i.e. the date of the accident.
62. The Hon'ble Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Abhijit Mazumder, 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 4971 held that:
"24. Bearing in mind the aforesaid proposition of the
Court, let me revert to the materials on record. The
insurance company by adducing the evidence of DW
1 and through the extract of driving license (Ext. F)
could establish the fact the driver of the offending
licence vehicle was not holding valid and effective
driving license to drive such vehicle. However, mere
absence of valid and effective driving license of the
driver for driving such vehicle at the relevant time,
are not in themselves defences available to the insurer
against either the insured or the third parties. To
avoid its liability towards the insured, the insurer has
to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and
failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of
fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of
vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not
disqualified to drive at the relevant time and such
burden of proof lies with the insurer to establish
"breach" on the part of the owner of the vehicle. At
this juncture, it is to be seen as to whether such
burden has been discharged by the insurance
company. The owner of the vehicle was aware that
the vehicle was meant for carrying hazardous
MACT 53/18 Page. 22 of 30
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
substances like inflammable oil. It was incumbent
upon the owner of the vehicle to ensure that all safety
protocols has been reasonably taken care of including
the fact that the driver was qualified to drive such
vehicle carrying hazardous substances. Allowing a
driver to drive such vehicle without having proper
licence to drive hazardous substance by itself makes
the owner of the vehicle guilty of negligence since he
failed to take reasonable care for fulfilling the
condition of policy. Since there is breach of condition
of the policy of insurance, the principle of pay and
recovery applies to the facts and circumstances of this
case. The learned Tribunal though observed that the
proposition in S. Iyyapan case [S. Iyyapan v. United
India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2013) 7 SCC 62] applies in
the factual matrix of the case, but no such order of
pay and recovery was passed giving liberty to the
insurance company to depositrecover the
compensation amount from the owner of the
offending vehicle. I find substance in the submissions
of Mr Paul, learned advocate for appellant Insurance
Company relying on S. Iyyapan case that liberty to
recover the compensation amount from the owner of
the offending vehicle shall be given to the insurer in
the facts and circumstances of the present case."
63. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in case of Branch Manager, SBI General
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Muthulakshmi and Others, 2025 SCC Online
mad 2541 held that:
"17. In case, the insurer becomes successful in
pleading and proving defences available to it
under Section 150 Sub-Section 2, it need not
honour its duty under the contract of
insurance towards the insured. However, the
statutory liability under Section 150(1)
towards third party remains unaffected, the
natural corollary would be after making
payment under Section 150 (1), the insurer is
MACT 53/18 Page. 23 of 30
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
entitled to recover the said amount from the
insured by virtue of its successful defence
raised under Section 150 (2). The liability of
insurer under Section 149 (1) [New Section 150
(1)] is a statutory liability and on the other
hand it is concomitant with liability of insurer
towards insured. If we say that the liability of
insurer to satisfy award passed against insured
is subject to terms and conditions of contract
between insurer and insured, over which
innocent third party victims have no control,
the very object of statutory liability enshrined
in Section 147 (1)(b) read with Section 149 (1)
[New Section 147 (1)(b) read with Section 150
(1)] of Motor Vehicles Act will get defeated. The
object of said provision is better served by
concept of "pay and recovery" enunciated
in Swaran Singh case cited infra. Infact, in
Swaran Singh case (in paragraphs 96 and 97),
the Apex Court emphasised that the concept of
pay and recovery has been holding the field for
a long time and the same need not be deviated.
The concept of "pay and recovery" will achieve
the object of providing hassle free mechanism
for poor accident victims to recover the
damages awarded to them with certainty and
on the other hand it also takes care of insurer's
right under contract of insurance by enabling
insurer to recover the amount paid by it to
third parties, which insurer is not bound to pay
to the insured.
24. Therefore, if the insured is guilty of
negligence or failed to exercise reasonable
care in the matters of fulfilling conditions of
the policy, the insurer is entitled to avoid its
liability towards insured under the contract of
insurance. However, its statutory liability
MACT 53/18 Page. 24 of 30
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
under Section 149 (1) [now Section 150 (1)]
towards innocent third parties remains
unaffected. The insurer by virtue of its
statutory liability shall pay the amount
payable by the insured to the third party
victims and recover the said amount from the
insured as insurer is entitled to refuse
indemnity in view of the breach committed by
the insured."
64. Accordingly, there is breach of terms of policy by insured and therefore the
insurance company is directed to pay the award amount and granted the liberty to
recover the same from driver & owner jointly or severally.
65. The petitioners should furnish details of their bank accounts pursuant to order
dated 23.04.2018 for electronic remittance of award amount.
VIII. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT
IN INJURY CASES
66. Since this is a case pertaining to injury, particulars of Form-XVI of the Scheme
For Motor Accidents Claims Formulated by the Delhi High Court in terms of
order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) are as under:
1. Date of accident : 23.11.2016
2. Name of the injured : Subhash
3. Age of the injured : 43 (on date of accident)
4. Occupation of the injured : Driver
5. Income of the injured : As per Minimum Wages
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by : Yes
the injured
8. Period of hospitalization : 23.11.2016 to 02.12.2016
9. Whether any permanent : Not assessed
MACT 53/18 Page. 25 of 30
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
disability?
10. Computation of Compensation
Sr.N Heads
o.
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment : 27,328/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance : 25,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet : 25,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant : 25,000/-
(v) Cost of artificial limb Not Claimed
(vi) Loss of earning capacity : Not Claimed
(vii) Loss of Income : 53,382/-
12. Non-pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental : 20,000/-
and physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering : 20,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life : 10,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration : Not claimed
(v) Loss of marriage prospects : Not claimed
(vi) Loss of earning, : Not claimed
inconvenience, hardships,
disappointment,frustration,
mental stress, dejectment
and unhappiness in future
life etc.
13. Disability resulting in
loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability : Not claimed
assessed and nature of
disability as permanent or
temporary
MACT 53/18 Page. 26 of 30
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of : Not claimed
expectation of life span on
account of disability.
(iii) Percentage of loss of : Not claimed
earning relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income & : Not claimed
earning capacity
14. Total Compensation Rs. 2,05,710/-
15. Interest Awarded : @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of
claim petition till the date of award to be
deposited in 30 days and 9% thereafter.
16. Interest amount up to the : Rs. 1,57,368/-
date of award (102 months)
17. Total amount including : Rs. 3,63,078/-
interest
18. Award amount released : 100%
19. Award amount kept in the : Nil.
FDRs/ Motor Accident
Claims Annuity Deposit
(MACAD)
20. Mode of disbursement of : ECS
the award amount to the
petitioner (s)
21. Next date for compliance : 12.01.2026
of the award
MACT 53/18 Page. 27 of 30
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
IX. COMPLIANCE QUA PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME
67. The particulars of Form XVII of the Scheme For Motor Accidents Claims
Formulated by the Delhi High Court, in terms of order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh
Tyagi (supra) are as hereunder:
1. Date of the accident 23.11.2016
2. Date of filing of Form I- First Not filed as accident took place
Accident Report (FAR) out of Delhi.
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the Same as above.
victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the Same as above.
Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Same as above
owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- Same as above
Interim Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Same as above
Form VIB from the Victim (s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII-Detailed Same as above
Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or DAR not filed.
deficiency on the part of the
Investigating Officer? If so, whether
any action/direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Not given
Designated Officer by the Insurance
Company.
11. Whether the Designated Officer of No
the Insurance Company submitted
his report within 30 days of the
DAR?
MACT 53/18 Page. 28 of 30
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
12. Whether there was any delay or No
deficiencies on 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) Matter was contested by the
of the offer of the Insurance Insurance Company.
Company.
14. Date of the Award 03.12.2025
15. Whether the petitioner(s) were Yes.
directed to open savings bank
account(s) near their place of
residence?
16. Date of order by which petitioner(s) 23.04.2018
were 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 petitioner (s)
and make an endorsement to this
effect on the passbook(s).
17. Date on which the petitioner(s) not furnished.
produced the passbook of their
savings bank account near the place
of their residence along with the
endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar
Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of As mentioned above
the petitioner(s)
19. Whether the petitioner(s) savings
bank account(s) is near his place of
residence?
20. Whether the petitioner(s) were Yes. -
MACT 53/18 Page. 29 of 30
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
examined at the time of passing of
the award to ascertain his/their
financial condition?
68. Further, in terms of the directions given vide order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh
Tyagi (supra), the Ahlmad shall send a certified copy of this award to the
concerned Criminal Court and to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority through
e-mail. Copy of the award be also sent to the bank concerned. The Nazir is
directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII as per the directions given in the
above case.
69. File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary formalities.
Separate file be prepared for compliance report and be put up on 12.01.2026.
Announced in the open court
on 03.12.2025
(Abhilash Malhotra)
Judge/PO, MACT-02,
New Delhi/03.12.2025
.....
DLND010062732017 MACT 53/18 Page. 30 of 30 Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors