Delhi District Court
Manish Kumar (Dar) vs Satya Pal Singh (Fir No. 256/22, Ps. ... on 21 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANJANI MAHAJAN, PRESIDING
OFFICER : MACT : SOUTH DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS :
NEW DELHI
AWARD/JUDGMENT
MACT No. : 360/2022
CNR No. DLST01-008091-2022
1. Sh. Manish Kumar,
S/o Sh. Virendra Yadav,
R/o H. No. 351, Village Rajpur Khurd,
New Delhi - 110048.
...Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Satyapal,
S/o Sh. Braham Singh,
R/o H. No. F-1205, Rajnagar,
Ghaziabad, UP.
...Driver
2. M/s Hotel Queen Road Pvt Ltd.
Sh. G. S. Sandhu,
S/o Sh. Jagir Singh,
R/o H. No. 122 DDA SFS, Sector-1,
Dwarka, New Delhi
...Owner
3. Shri Ram General Insurance,
B 08 Unit No. 402 GD ITL Tower,
Subhash Place, Pitampura,
New Delhi.
....Insurance Company
...Respondents
Date of Institution : 15.09.2022
Date of reserving of judgment/order : 12.01.2026
Date of pronouncement : 21.01.2026
Sh. Manish Kumar Vs Sh. Satya Pal Singh & Ors
MACT No. 360/2022 Page No.1 of 31
FORM-XVII
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE
1. Date of the accident 22.04.2022
2. Date of filing of Form-I - FAR was filed in the present
First Accident Report (FAR) matter alongwith DAR.
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to Not Mentioned by IO
the victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III Not Mentioned by IO
from the Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV Not Mentioned by IO
from the Owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- Not Mentioned by IO
Interim Accident Report
(IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA Not Mentioned by IO
and Form-VIB from the
Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII-
Detailed Accident Report 15.09.2022
(DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay
or deficiency on the part of N.A.
the Investigating Officer? If
so, whether any action/
direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the N.A.
Designated Officer by the
Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated N.A.
Officer of the Insurance
Company submitted his report
within 30 days of the
petition/DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay
or deficiency on the part of N.A.
Sh. Manish Kumar Vs Sh. Satya Pal Singh & Ors
MACT No. 360/2022 Page No.2 of 31
the Designated Officer of the
Insurance Company? If so,
whether any action/direction
warranted?
13. Date of response of the N.A.
petitioner(s) to the offer of the
Insurance Company
14. Date of the award 21.01.2026
15. Whether the petitioner(s)
was/were directed to open -
savings bank account(s) near
their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which 22.12.2025
petitioner(s) was/were
directed to open savings bank
account(s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN
Card and Aadhaar Card and
the direction to the bank not
issue any cheque book/debit
card to the petitioner(s) and
make an endorsement to this
effect on the passbook.
17. Date on which the Pan Card and Adhar Card
petitioner(s) produced the were produced at the time of
passbook of their savings recording of the financial
bank account near the place statement on 12.01.2026 and
of their residence along-with petitioner stated that he
the endorsement, PAN Card would get a bank account
and Adhaar Card? opened in a nationalized
bank near his place of
residence shortly.
18. Permanent Residential R/o H. No. 351, Village
Address of the petitioner(s). Rajpur Khurd,
New Delhi - 110048.
19. Whether the petitioner(s)
savings bank account(s) is/are -
near his/her/their place of
residence?
Sh. Manish Kumar Vs Sh. Satya Pal Singh & Ors
MACT No. 360/2022 Page No.3 of 31
20. Whether the petitioner(s)
was/were examined at the Yes
time of passing of the award
to ascertain his/her/their
financial condition?
JUDGMENT
(1) Vide this judgment/award, I shall decide the Detailed Accident Report (DAR) which was treated as a claim petition U/s 166 of The Motors Vehicles Act 1988 (MV Act in short) filed for compensation on account of injuries sustained by the injured/petitioner Sh. Manish Kumar in a road vehicular accident which took place on 22.04.2022.
Case Set up in the DAR (2) In the DAR, in column 31 pertaining to the detailed description of the accident, it is submitted that a PCR call vide DD No. 79 on 22.04.2022 was received and entrusted to the Investigating Officer (IO). The IO reached the place of occurrence alongwith Ct Satish but did not find any witness. Thereafter DD No. 82 A regarding MLC No. 3389 /2022 from Max Hospital New Delhi was received and the injured/petitioner Sh. Manish was found to be under treatment but he did not give any statement so the PCR call was kept pending investigation. Thereafter on 24.04.2022 the injured came alongwith the respondent no. 1 Satya Pal to the police station Ambedkar Nagar and gave his written statement. FIR No. 256/2022 U/s 279/338 IPC was lodged on the basis of the statement of the petitioner. (3) The complaint of the petitioner has been reproduced in the charge-sheet, copy of which is annexed to the DAR. Inter- alia it is averred therein that on 22.04.2022 at about 1 pm, the Sh. Manish Kumar Vs Sh. Satya Pal Singh & Ors MACT No. 360/2022 Page No.4 of 31 petitioner was returning home from his work place by his motorcycle bearing no. DL-3SCG-3613 and on reaching the BRT Road near CNG Pump, a vehicle i.e. Innova Car bearing registration no. DL-1ZB-2304 white in colour (herein after called the offending vehicle) being driven at a high speed rashly and negligently hit the motorcycle of the petitioner from behind due to which the petitioner fell down on the road and sustained injuries. The driver of the offending vehicle took the petitioner to the hospital and informed his name as Satyapal Singh. Thereafter, the petitioner alongwith a neighbor namely Sandeep Rathi and the respondent no. 1 went to the police station Ambedkar Nagar and gave his written complaint.
(4) The petitioner has filed written submissions in the prescribed format wherein he has claimed an amount of Rs.3,28,365/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Five Only) alongwith interest.
Miscellaneous Proceedings (5) Respondents no. 1 Satyapal Singh (driver), no. 2 M/s Hotel Queen Road Pvt Ltd (owner) and no. 3 Shri Ram General Insurance Company entered appearance. (6) A joint written statement was filed on behalf of respondent no. 1 Driver and respondent no. 2 Owner. Reply to the DAR was filed by the insurance company. No legal offer was made.
Stand of the Respondents No. 1 and 2 (7) The respondents no. 1 and 2 in their joint written statement have submitted that there is a delay of two days in lodging of the FIR which has not been explained by the injured Sh. Manish Kumar Vs Sh. Satya Pal Singh & Ors MACT No. 360/2022 Page No.5 of 31 as well as the investigating agency in the DAR. It is the contention of the respondents no. 1 and 2 that the respondent no.1 was having a valid driving license and the alleged offending vehicle was duly insured with the respondent no. 3 at the time of the accident. The petitioner had not suffered any physical deformity or handicap due to the alleged accident and the petitioner was suffering from an injury prior to the alleged accident which had not been mentioned by the investigating agency. It is also averred that the amount claimed by the petitioner is exorbitant and without any basis. The respondents contend that the accident occurred due to the negligent and careless act of the petitioner who was not medically and physically fit for driving as he was suffering from a prior injury and the case had been concocted in order to extract money from the respondents. It is prayed that the DAR petition be dismissed.
Stand of the Respondent No. 3(8) The respondent no. 3 insurance company also took the plea that the FIR was lodged after delay of two days. However, it was admitted that the alleged offending vehicle was insured vide policy bearing no. 101047/31/22/002066 for the period 26.06.2021 to 25.06.2022.
Framing of Issues (9) After completion of the pleadings on 14.08.2023, the following issues were framed in the present case -
(a) Whether Manish Kumar sustained injuries in the road accident on 22.04.2022 at around 10.30 AM at BRT Road near CNG Pump, Ambedkar Nagar due to rash and negligent driving of car (Innova) bearing no. DL-1ZB-2304 being driven by Sh. Manish Kumar Vs Sh. Satya Pal Singh & Ors MACT No. 360/2022 Page No.6 of 31 respondent no.1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3 Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. ? OPP
(b) To what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled and from whom ? OPP
(c) Relief.
(10) The matter was then listed for Petitioner's Evidence before the Ld. Local Commissioner (L.C.).
Evidence Adduced By The Petitioner (11) The petitioner examined himself as PW-1. PW-1 tendered his affidavit of evidence as PW1/A and relied upon the following documents -
(a) Discharge summary of Max Hospital - Ex.PW1/1 (running into 8 pages).
(b) Discharge summary of Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital, New Delhi - Ex.PW1/2 (running into 2 pages).
(c) OPD Card of Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital, New Delhi - Ex.PW1/3 (colly) (running into 6 pages).
(d) Medical Bills - Ex.PW1/4 (colly) (running into 8 pages).
(e) Photocopy of the Adhar Card - Ex.PW1/5 (OSR).
(f) DAR - Ex.PW1/6 (colly).
(g) Salary Slip - Ex.PW1/7 (running into 2 pages).
(12) The petitioner/PW1 was cross examined by Ld.
counsel for the respondent no. 3 which cross examination was adopted by Ld. counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2. (13) As per the report of Ld. LC, Petitioner's Evidence Sh. Manish Kumar Vs Sh. Satya Pal Singh & Ors MACT No. 360/2022 Page No.7 of 31 (PE) was closed on 11.12.2023.
Evidence Adduced by Respondents No. 1 and 2 (14) The Respondent no. 1 examined himself as R1W1. R1W1 exhibited his affidavit of evidence as Ex.R1W1/A. He was cross examined by Ld. counsel for the petitioner as well as Ld. counsel for the insurance company.
Evidence Adduced by Respondent No. 3(15) The respondent no.3 insurance company examined Sh. Nishant Tripathi, Legal Executive of the respondent company as R3W1. R3W1 exhibited his affidavit of evidence as Ex.R3W1/1 and the copy of the insurance policy as Ex.R3W1/2. This witness was not cross examined by either the petitioner or the respondents no. 1 and 2. Respondents' Evidence (RE) was then closed on 03.05.2024.
Final Arguments (16) Thereafter final arguments were advanced by Ld. counsel for the parties.
(17) Ld. counsel for the petitioner filed written submissions in the prescribed format. Written submissions were also furnished on behalf of respondents no. 1 and 2 jointly and also on behalf of the respondent no.3 insurance company. (18) I have heard the arguments addressed by Ld. counsel for the parties and perused the record including the written submissions filed.
Issue Wise Analysis & Findings Issue no. 1 Whether Manish Kumar sustained injuries in the road accident on 22.04.2022 at around 10.30 AM at BRT Road Sh. Manish Kumar Vs Sh. Satya Pal Singh & Ors MACT No. 360/2022 Page No.8 of 31 near CNG Pump, Ambedkar Nagar due to rash and negligent driving of car (Innova) bearing no. DL-1ZB-2304 being driven by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3 (Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.) ? OPP (19) Before delving into the discussion on this issue it would be useful to highlight the principles regarding the procedure to be followed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The procedure to be so followed is similar to that followed by a civil court. In civil matters, the facts are required to be established on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities only and not beyond reasonable doubt, as is required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in civil cases is not as heavy as in a criminal case and in a claim petition under The Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the burden is even lesser than a civil case. The proceedings are in the nature of an enquiry and are not strictly adversarial as is the case in civil and criminal proceedings.
(20) Gainful reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of Hon'ble S. C. in Bimla Devi & Ors Vs Himachal Road Transport Corp. & Ors (2009) 13 SC 530 wherein it was held that it was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the petitioners and the petitioners were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. This view was reiterated by the Apex Court in the subsequent judgment of Mangla Ram Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors (2018) 5 SCC 656 . (21) The aforesaid legal principles form the grundnorm Sh. Manish Kumar Vs Sh. Satya Pal Singh & Ors MACT No. 360/2022 Page No.9 of 31 for deciding the issue at hand.
(22) The petitioner/PW-1 Sh. Manish Kumar deposed vide his affidavit of evidence Ex.PW1/A about the manner in which the accident took place on 22.04.2022, testifying that at about 1 pm that day he was driving his motorcycle bearing no. DL-3SCG-3613 and when he reached the BRT Road near CNG Pump, the offending vehicle came from behind being driven at a high speed, in a zig zag manner in a rash and negligent manner and struck his motorcycle from behind due to which he fell on the road and sustained multiple injuries. (23) In his cross-examination conducted by Ld. counsel for the insurance company, the petitioner/PW-1 Sh. Manish Kumar firmly deposed that he had seen the registration number of the offending vehicle at the time of accident and he reiterated that the driver of the offending vehicle himself took PW-1 to the hospital and PW-1 was fully conscious at the time. The petitioner/PW-1 furnished the explanation for not telling the registration number of the offending vehicle to the IO at the time of recording of his statement that the IO did not ask him the same on 22.04.2022.
(24) The petitioner/PW-1 testified further in his cross- examination that he had a valid driving license and firmly denied the suggestion that the accident was committed due to his own negligence and the offending vehicle was intentionally involved in the accident to gain high claim.
(25) The respondent no. 1 Satya Pal Singh /driver stepped into the witness box as RW-1. In his affidavit of evidence Ex.R1W1/A, the respondent no. 1 inter-alia took the stand that he Sh. Manish Kumar Vs Sh. Satya Pal Singh & Ors MACT No. 360/2022 Page No.10 of 31 had been falsely involved in the present case and the accident had not been caused due to any negligent driving by him. (26) Interestingly, the respondent no. 1 in his affidavit of evidence had deposed that the incident occurred due to the negligent and careless act of the petitioner as the petitioner was not medically and physically fit for driving due to a prior injury however, no such question or suggestion was put on behalf of the respondent no. 1 to the petitioner during the cross examination of the petitioner. The respondent no. 1 also did not choose to adduce any medical evidence on record in support of such a contention which appears to be a bald averment and a mere ipse dixit. Additionally, the respondent no. 1 did not choose to put forth his version as to in what manner was the petitioner allegedly negligent.
(27) In his cross-examination conducted by Ld. counsel for the petitioner, the respondent no. 1/R1W1 conceded that he had never filed any complaint before the police officials, courts or any other authority regarding false criminal case against him. The respondent no. 1 in his cross examination denied the suggestion that the accident was caused due to his negligence. Pertinently, the copy of the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle which is part of the charge-sheet annexed to the DAR reflects fresh damages i.e. 'front bumper scratched' and 'left side front corner light damaged'. The respondent no. 1 was required to explain how the aforesaid fresh damages were incurred by his vehicle but he chose not to do so at his own peril. (28) The damages as shown in the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle are another factor going against Sh. Manish Kumar Vs Sh. Satya Pal Singh & Ors MACT No. 360/2022 Page No.11 of 31 the respondent no. 1 and the fact that the respondent no. 1 failed to render any explanation regarding the same gives credence to the case of the petitioner as in such circumstances the only logical explanation appears to be that the damages were infact incurred in the accident in question.
(29) In Mangla Ram (supra) it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court that filing of the charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle prima facie points towards the complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly and the subsequent acquittal of the accused may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in motor vehicle accident cases. (30) In the present case, it is the admitted position that the charge-sheet was filed against the respondent no.1. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was earlier known to them/either of them and bore any enmity towards them so as to falsely implicate them or seek compensation falsely from them. It is also not the case that the I.O. harboured any animosity against the respondents which could be a motive to falsely implicate the respondent no.1 in the criminal case. In fact, as admitted by RW-1 Sh. Satya Pal Singh in his cross-examination, no complaint had been filed before the police officials, courts or any other authority regarding filing of false criminal case against him. (31) Ld. counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2 argued that the petitioner was suffering from an injury prior to the alleged accident which he was trying to saddle upon the respondent driver. Ld. counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2 referred to the discharge summary of the petitioner Ex.PW1/1 wherein, in the column pertaining to Vitals 'Past history of base Sh. Manish Kumar Vs Sh. Satya Pal Singh & Ors MACT No. 360/2022 Page No.12 of 31 of 5th metatarsal fracture right foot 3 months back' was mentioned.
(32) Ld. counsel for the petitioner countered and rightly so, that the same was concededly a previous injury and the diagnosis in the discharge summary clearly mentioned about the fresh injury as 'Lateral Malleolus fracture right ankle'. (33) The definition of 'Matatarsal' as per Merriam Webster.com is 'of, relating to, or being part of the human foot or of the hind foot in quadripeds between the tarsus and the phalanges that in humans comprises five elongated bonus which form the front of the instep and ball of the foot''. (34) The definition of Malleolus as per Merriam webster.com is 'an expanded projection or process at the distal end of the fibula or tibia at the level of the ankle'. (35) Clearly therefore, the injury of the metatarsal bone and that of malleolus are two separate injuries, afflicting separate parts, one afflicting the base of the foot and another, the ankle. It is apparently a coincidence that both the injuries were sustained by the petitioner on his right leg at the foot and ankle respectively but that is where the coincidence ends. The injury of the lateral malleolus fracture of the right ankle is the fresh injury sustained by the petitioner on 22.04.2022 as evidenced from the Discharge Summary.
(36) Notably, the respondents no. 1 and 2 did not even seek to so much so as put a suggestion to the petitioner /PW-1 in cross-examination that the aforesaid injury was an old injury or that the injury mentioned in the 'vitals' column was the same as that mentioned in the diagnosis, nor did the respondents seek to Sh. Manish Kumar Vs Sh. Satya Pal Singh & Ors MACT No. 360/2022 Page No.13 of 31 examine any medical expert to corroborate such an allegation. As such, considering the definitions of the medical terms as noted above it is crystal clear that the two are absolutely distinct injuries and the argument of the respondents in this regard is a feeble attempt to escape their liability, which has no legs to stand upon.
(37) The genuineness and veracity of the medical documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/3 colly has not been challenged by the respondents. Ex.PW1/1 clearly notes about the fracture in the right ankle which, in terms of Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code, constitutes a grievous injury.
(38) On the aspect of delay of two days in lodging the FIR, suffice to say that the contents of the DAR note that PCR call vide DD No. 79 was received by the IO on 22.04.2022 itself and DD No. 82 A dated 22.04.2022 regarding the MLC of the injured was also received by the IO so the information regarding the accident itself was relayed to the police authorities on the same day, the petitioner chose not to give the statement at the hospital but came on 24.04.2022 with the driver and gave the written complaint. Given the fact that the MLC was prepared on the same day mentioning about RTA (Road Traffic Accident) and also about information being provided to the police official regarding the same, no doubt or suspicion regarding the contents of the FIR being concocted or an afterthought arises. (39) It is well-settled that mere delay in lodging of FIR cannot be a ground to dismiss a valid claim under the benevolent legislation of the MV Act.
(40) In Ravi Vs Badrinarayan 2011 INSC 139 decided by Sh. Manish Kumar Vs Sh. Satya Pal Singh & Ors MACT No. 360/2022 Page No.14 of 31 Hon'ble Apex Court on 18.02.2011 , it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 10 as under -
"In case of delay, the courts are required to examine the evidence with a closer scrutiny and in doing so; the contents of the FIR should also be scrutinized more carefully. If court finds that there is no indication of fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered to implicate innocent persons then, even if there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the claim case can not be dismissed merely on that ground".
(41) In light of the authoritative ruling in Ravi Vs Badrinarayan (supra) , mere delay in lodging of the FIR in the present case cannot be a ground to dismiss the case as there is no indication at all of the contents of the FIR being fabricated. (42) The respondents have failed to put forth any such defence as could cast a cloud of doubt over the petitioner's version, which is more trustworthy and believable. (43) The petitioner maintained that he was hit from behind. The very fact that the offending vehicle hit the petitioner from the back due to which the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries is sufficient to invoke the principle of Res ipsa loquitor (the thing speaks for itself) and the presumption of negligence and rashness on the part of the respondent driver/respondent no.1 is raised. No cogent evidence to rebut the presumption has been adduced by the respondents. (44) The petitioner on a preponderance of probabilities, has successfully established that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1ZB-2304 and said vehicle was being driven by the Sh. Manish Kumar Vs Sh. Satya Pal Singh & Ors MACT No. 360/2022 Page No.15 of 31 respondent no.1, admittedly owned by respondent no. 2 and concededly insured by the respondent no. 3. (45) Issue no. 1 is hence decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
Issue no. 2 To what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled and from whom ? OPP (46) Section 168 of the MV Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to award compensation which appears to be just and reasonable.
(47) In the case of Divisional Controller, KSRTC Vs Mahadeva Shetty & Anr (2003) 7 SCC 197 , it was observed by Ld. Hon'ble Apex Court as follows -
"Statutory provisions clearly indicate 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 is the pivotal consideration. Though by use of the expression "which appears to it to be just" a wide discretion is vested on 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".
(48) Certain principles for delineating just compensation were enumerated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Raj Kumar Vs Ajay Kumar & Ors (2011) 1 SCC 343 as follows -
"General principles relating to compensation in injury cases
4. The provision of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for Sh. Manish Kumar Vs Sh. Satya Pal Singh & Ors MACT No. 360/2022 Page No.16 of 31 short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the petitioner to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The Court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376, R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467).
5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following :
Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising :
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
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 petitioner, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. Assessment of pecuniary damages under item (i) and under item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses - item (iii) -- depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages - items
(iv), (v) and (vi) -- involves determination of lump sum amounts Sh. Manish Kumar Vs Sh. Satya Pal Singh & Ors MACT No. 360/2022 Page No.17 of 31 with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the petitioner and the effect thereof on the future life of the petitioner."
(49) In view of the above law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India , in routine injury cases, award needs to be passed only under heads of medical expenses, loss of earning during treatment period and damages for pain, suffering and trauma. In cases of serious injuries, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the claim/evidence of the petitioner, award additionally needs to be passed under the heads of loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability suffered, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (including loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. The assessment of future medical expenses would depend upon specific medical evidence/advise for further treatment and costs thereof. The determination of damages on account of pain and suffering, loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life would depend upon the age of victim, nature of injury(ies)/deprivation/disability suffered by victim and the effect thereof on life of petitioner. This is a case there no permanent disability is claimed. I shall now proceed to determine the quantum of compensation in a stepwise manner.
Determination of income of the petitioner (50) The petitioner/PW-1 in his affidavit of evidence Ex.PW1/A deposed that he was working with M/s Bajaj Housing Finance Ltd. (Third Party Team Lease) and drawing monthly salary of Rs. 20,000/-. He exhibited the copy of the 'Salary Revision Letter' issued to him by Team Lease with the salary annexure reflecting the net salary of Rs. 18,421/- as Ex.PW1/7.
Sh. Manish Kumar Vs Sh. Satya Pal Singh & Ors MACT No. 360/2022 Page No.18 of 31 (51) Noteworthy is the fact that no objection as to mode of proof of this document was raised at the stage this document was tendered in evidence. Further even though questions were put to PW-1/petitioner on the aspect of the salary document by Ld. counsel for the insurance company wherein PW-1 admitted that the offer cum salary slip was only digitally signed on behalf of the authorities signatory of the company and salary cum offer letter was not duly stamped by Team Lease, however no question or suggestion to the effect that the document Ex.PW1/7 was a forged or fabricated document was ever put. (52) No aspersions having been cast by the respondents on the authenticity of Ex.PW1/7, it can well be relied upon in the present proceedings which are only in the nature of enquiry where, as already noted in the earlier part of the judgment, strict rules of procedure are not required to be adhered to. It is not an adversarial proceeding and rather the legislation is a benevolent social welfare legislature which aims at providing speedy succour to the victims of road accidents and their families. Thus, going by the document Ex.PW1/7, the net salary /income of the petitioner at the time of the accident was Rs. 18,421/-.
Award towards Medical Expenses (53) The petitioner has sought Rs. 4,365/- towards expenditure on treatment vide the written submissions furnished although in his affidavit of evidence he has claimed to have spent more than Rs. 70,000/- on his medicine and treatment. The medical bills are Ex.PW1/4 colly. The petitioner has not filed any other medical bills nor does he claim to have misplaced them. In absence of any further medical bills being adduced on record, Sh. Manish Kumar Vs Sh. Satya Pal Singh & Ors MACT No. 360/2022 Page No.19 of 31 only the medical bills forming part of Ex.PW1/4 colly are to be considered and they total to Rs. 4,515/-. Accordingly, petitioner is awarded Rs.4,515/- towards medical expenses.
Award towards special diet (54) No cogent evidence has been adduced on record regarding the expenses incurred by the petitioner upon special diet, however considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner must have spent some amount under this head. Hence, compensation of Rs.15,000/- is granted towards expenses incurred on special diet.
Award qua attendant charges (55) The petitioner has not adduced any evidence on record to show the expenses incurred by him towards attendant charges though he has claimed that he engaged an attendant to look after him at a monthly salary of Rs. 8,000/- per month for three months. However, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, it would be just to award an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the petitioner towards attendant charges. Hence, so granted.
Award qua conveyance (56) No bills/receipts have been filed by the petitioner in regard to expenses incurred on conveyance however considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and the medical documents which show the trips made by him to the hospital, it is reasonable to presume that some expenditure would have been incurred by him towards conveyance for visiting the hospital/doctor. The petitioner is therefore awarded Rs.15,000/-
Sh. Manish Kumar Vs Sh. Satya Pal Singh & Ors MACT No. 360/2022 Page No.20 of 31 toward expenses incurred in conveyance.
Determination of loss of income during treatment period (57) As per the medical documents filed, the petitioner was admitted to the hospital on the date of accident i.e. 22.04.2022 and discharged the same day and thereafter as per Ex.PW1/2 discharge summary of Pt. Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital he was hospitalized from 22.05.2022 till 26.05.2022. On 08.06.2022, the petitioner visited the hospital as can be discerned from Ex.PW1/3 OPD Ticket.
(58) The petitioner/PW-1 deposed in his cross- examination that he had taken three months leave for medical rest during treatment but he admitted that he had not filed any attendance sheet for those three months. PW-1 also testified that he had not applied for medical leave.
(59) The petitioner did not seek to summon any witness from his employer's office to establish that he was on leave for three months from the office, that too without pay. Adverse inference would have to be drawn against the petitioner for not adducing such vital evidence on record that petitioner in fact did not take leave for three months.
(60) In absence of any evidence to show the leaves taken by the petitioner from his office let alone, the same being without pay, or even medical evidence evidencing such rest for three months, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner was on leave for a period of three months, however considering that the petitioner was hospitalized for the period aforementioned, the period of leave would have to be taken as the dates/period of Sh. Manish Kumar Vs Sh. Satya Pal Singh & Ors MACT No. 360/2022 Page No.21 of 31 actual hospitalization, which come to a total of 6 days. The salary of the petitioner being Rs. 18,421/- per day salary would be Rs.614.03/- or say Rs. 614/- (18421 /30) and accordingly, the salary for 6 days would come to 614 x 6 = Rs. 3,684/-. Thus, an amount of Rs.3,684/- is awarded towards loss of income during the treatment period.
Award towards Pain & Suffering and Mental & Physical Shock (61) The mental and physical loss cannot always be arithmetically computed in terms of money. The object remains to compensate in so far as money can compensate. (62) In Nathu Lal Vs Sandeep Gulati & Ors MAC. APP. 770/2011 decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 21.05.2012 it was held thus -
"15. It is settled law that a particular amount cannot be fixed on pain and suffering for all cases as it varies from case to case. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that since the petitioner had got injuries/fracture as aforesaid, he might have suffered acute pain and sufferings owing to the said injuries. He might have also consumed heavy dose of antibiotic etc. and also might have remained without movements of his body for a considerable period of time. In order to ascertain the pain and sufferings compensation, I am guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case Satya Narain Vs Jai Kishan, FAO No. 709/02, date of decision 02.02.2007, wherein it was held that :- "On account of pain and suffering, suffice would it to note that it is difficult to measure pain and suffering in terms of a money value. However, compensation which has to be paid must bear some objective co-
Sh. Manish Kumar Vs Sh. Satya Pal Singh & Ors MACT No. 360/2022 Page No.22 of 31 relation with the pain and suffering. The objective facts relatable to pain and suffering would be :
(a) Nature of injury
(b) Body part affected
(c) Duration of treatment (63) The petitioner suffered a fracture in his right ankle and was also hospitalized for a few days for surgery purpose. He must have suffered pain and suffering and mental and physical shock as a result of the accident and injuries sustained therein.
Accordingly, the petitioner is awarded Rs.50,000/- towards pain, suffering and mental and physical shock.
IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THIS
TRIBUNAL AWARDS THE COMPENSATION AS
TABULATED HEREIN BELOW : -
S.No Heads of Compensation Amount
.
1. Reimbursement of medical Rs.4,515/-
expenses
2. Pain and Suffering and Mental Rs.50,000/-
and Physical Shock
3. Loss of income during Rs.3,684/-
treatment period
4. Special diet Rs.15,000/-
5. Attendant charges Rs.15,000/-
6. Conveyance Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.1,03,199/-
Apportionment of Liability
(64) The respondent no. 3 insurance company raised the
defence that the offending vehicle, concededly a commercial vehicle being a taxi, did not have a valid and effective permit at the time of the accident and hence the respondent no. 3 was Sh. Manish Kumar Vs Sh. Satya Pal Singh & Ors MACT No. 360/2022 Page No.23 of 31 bound to be exonerated since the same was a fundamental breach of the insurance policy's conditions.
(65) The respondents no. 1 and 2 on the other hand raised the plea in the written submissions that the permit had expired only a day prior to the accident and the law as well as conditions of permit provided grace period of 30 days to the respondent no. 2 to get the permit revalidated.
(66) The respondent no. 3 examined R3W1 Sh. Nishant Tripathi during evidence who deposed that at the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was not under a valid permit. No cross-examination of this witness was conducted on behalf of the respondents no. 1 and 2.
(67) The respondent no. 1/R1W1 was cross examined on this score by Ld. counsel for the respondent insurance company and he deposed candidly that it was a matter of record that on the date of accident, the permit of the offending vehicle had expired. He was thereafter re-examined by Ld. counsel for the respondent no. 1 wherein he admitted that as on the date of the cross- examination (conducted on 01.04.2024) the offending vehicle had a valid permit and same was renewed as required. (68) Now, the fact that the permit was renewed post the accident is a matter of record, since alongwith the DAR, the copy of vehicle particulars issued by the Transport Department, GNCT of Delhi bearing the attestation of the Registering Authority is annexed as per which the permit was valid from 26.04.2022 till 16.04.2026.
(69) It is not disputed by any of the respondents that the earlier permit had expired as on the date of the accident and the Sh. Manish Kumar Vs Sh. Satya Pal Singh & Ors MACT No. 360/2022 Page No.24 of 31 renewal was done later as per the details above mentioned. (70) The question is whether on the ground that the permit had expired as on the date of the accident though renewed later on, the insurance company can be exonerated. (71) This question came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in case titled Dr. Narasimulu Nandini Memorial Education Trust Vs Banu Begum & Ors Misc. First Appeal No. 202022/2016 (MV) decided on 08.07.2022, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karanataka was pleased to refer to and rely upon the judgment of the coordinate Bench in United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Yasmin Begum & ORs MFA 5159/2016 wherein it was held thus -
"23. On a reading of the aforesaid provisions, it becomes clear when the permit is issued, in the first instance, it is effective from the date of issuance for a period of five years. But subsequently when a permit which has expired is renewed, it is from the date of expiry. Having regard to Sub- sections (2) and (3) of Section 81 of the Act, where there could be a delay in making of an application for renewal of permit and also keeping in mind the fact that renewal application would take sometime for it to be considered, processed and ultimately the permit being renewed even though such an application has been made well within time. Sub-section (5) of Section 81 of the Act takes care of a period during which the vehicle is plying on the public road, pending renewal of the permit. In such a case, Sub-section (5) of Section 81 of the Act states that where a permit is renewed after the expiry of its period, such renewal shall have an effect from the date of such expiry. In other words, Sub-section (5) of Section 81 of the Act deals with a case of deemed permit or takes care of a situation where pending renewal of a permit, a transport vehicle is plying on a public road. In such a situation, it cannot be considered to be a case where the transport vehicle is plying without a permit rather the vehicle is plying pending renewal of the permit Sh. Manish Kumar Vs Sh. Satya Pal Singh & Ors MACT No. 360/2022 Page No.25 of 31 i.e. on a deemed permit. Renewal of the permit could take place only if a permit had been issued in the first instance and not otherwise. Hence, the object of a provision incorporating a legal fiction must be given its fullest scope and application".
(72) The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the aforesaid judgment of Dr. Narasimulu Nandini Memorial Education Trust Vs Banu Begum & Ors (supra) went on to note as follows -
"13 Smt. Preethi Patil Melkundi has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Paul Singh (supra) in support of her contention. But the co-ordinate Bench referred to Amrit Paul Singh while deciding Yasmin Begum and held that the ratio in Amrit Paul Singh is not applicable because the factual position there was that the offending vehicle did not have permit at all. Therefore Amrit Paul Singh is not helpful to respondent No. 4. The decision of the Supreme Court in M.S.Middle High School was also considered by the coordinate bench in the case of Yasmin Begum. Moreover, in M.S.Middle High School, we do not find any law being laid down. Therefore we are of the view that the ratio in Yasmin Begum can be applied to the case on hand. Looked in this view, we may state that though Ex.R1 indicates that the permit was validated with effect from 30.3.2015, in view of section 81(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, it should be deemed that on the day when the accident took place, the permit was in force".
(73) The facts of the aforesaid case apply on all fours in the present factual matrix. No judgment to the contrary on this aspect, either of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has been quoted/ brought to the notice of this court by the respondent insurance company. Hence, in view of the ratio of Dr. Narasimulu Nandini Memorial Education Trust Vs Banu Begum & Ors (supra) , the plea of the respondent insurance company of exoneration on the ground of there being no valid and effective permit on the date of the accident stands Sh. Manish Kumar Vs Sh. Satya Pal Singh & Ors MACT No. 360/2022 Page No.26 of 31 rejected since the permit was admittedly renewed later and such renewal in terms of Section 81 (5) of the MV Act shall relate back to the date of expiry and it shall be deemed that on the date of the accident, the permit was in force.
(74) Accordingly, the respondent insurance company having failed to establish any statutory defence, the liability falls solely upon the respondent no. 3 insurance company to pay the award amount.
Relief -
(75) Consequent to the foregoing discussion an amount of Rs.1,03,199/- is awarded to the petitioner with simple interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till actual realization which shall be payable by the respondent no. 3 insurance company.
(76) In case the interest of petitioner was stopped or excluded during the present enquiry proceedings, same is liable to be adjusted from the total interest calculated on the Award amount. Similarly, amount awarded and released as interim award if any, during pendency of the case, be deducted from the total compensation amount.
(77) The petitioner is directed to open a bank account in nationalized bank near his place of residence and to place on record the photocopy of his passbooks, adhar card and pan card in between. The concerned bank is also directed not to issue any cheque book or debit card and to make an endorsement in this regard on the passbook of the petitioner itself. A copy of this judgment be given dasti to the petitioner to submit the same before the concerned bank.
Sh. Manish Kumar Vs Sh. Satya Pal Singh & Ors MACT No. 360/2022 Page No.27 of 31 (78) Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No.842/2003 titled as "Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. " has formulated MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme) vide its order dated 07.12.2018 which was made effective from 01.01.2019.
(79) Keeping in mind the guidelines laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi , the respondent no. 3 insurance company is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs.1,03,199/- (Rupees One Lakh Three Thousand One Hundred Ninty Nine Only) as stated herein above with State Bank of India, Saket District Court Branch, New Delhi in the MACT SOUTH SAKET COURT A/c 42706751873 IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 in favour the petitioner(s)/applicant(s)/petitioner(s) as stated herein above under intimation to the petitioner and his counsel within a period of 30 days from the date of the passing of the award. The State Bank of India, Saket District Court Complex Branch, New Delhi is directed to disburse the amount in accordance with MACAD formulated by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi . (80) Manager, State Bank of India, Saket District Court Branch, New Delhi is directed to release/disburse the entire amount of Rs.1,03,199/- (Rupees One Lakh Three Thousand One Hundred Ninty Nine Only) immediately to the injured/petitioner in his bank account subject to compliance of the direction contained in para 77 of this judgment by the petitioner.
(81) Nazir of this Court shall prepare a separate file regarding the status of deposition/non-deposition of the award amount by the respondent(s) after making necessary entry on CIS Sh. Manish Kumar Vs Sh. Satya Pal Singh & Ors MACT No. 360/2022 Page No.28 of 31 immediately.
(82) A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of cost through email.
(83) Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of award to Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)].
(84) Ahlmad shall also e-email an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Saket District Court Complex Branch, New Delhi for information. (85) File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance. Separate file be prepared for compliance and be put up on 21.04.2026.
Digitally
signed by
Announced in the open Court Anjani
Anjani
mahajan
today i.e. 21th of January, 2026 mahajan Date:
2026.01.21
16:00:31
+0530
(ANJANI MAHAJAN)
Presiding Officer : MACT (S)
Saket Courts : New Delhi
21.01.2026
Sh. Manish Kumar Vs Sh. Satya Pal Singh & Ors MACT No. 360/2022 Page No.29 of 31 FORM-XVI SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE
1. Date of accident : 22.04.2022
2. Name of the injured : Manish Kumar
3. Age of the injured : 28 years
4. Occupation of the injured : Private Job (currently unemployed as per financial statement)
5. Income of the injured : Rs. 18,421/- per month
6. Nature of injury : Grievous injury
7. Medical treatment taken : Yes
8. Period of Hospitalization : 22.05.2022 to 26.05.2022
9. Whether any permanent disability ?
If yes, give details : No.
10. Computation of Compensation
S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss :-
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs.4,515/-
(ii) Expenditure on Rs.15,000/-
conveyance
(iii) Expenditure on special Rs.15,000/-
diet
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs.15,000/-
(v) Loss of earning capacity NIL
(vi) Loss of Income Rs.3,684/-
(vii) Any other loss which NIL
may require any special
treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his
life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss :-
(i) Compensation for mental Rs.50,000/-
and physical shock and
Pain and Suffering
(ii) Loss of amenities of life NA
(iii) Dis-figuration NA
(iv) Loss of marriage NA
prospects
(v) Loss of earning, NA
inconvenience,
hardships,
Sh. Manish Kumar Vs Sh. Satya Pal Singh & Ors MACT No. 360/2022 Page No.30 of 31 disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity :-
(i) Percentage of disability NA
assessed and nature of
disability as permanent
or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss -
of expectation of life
span on account of
disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of -
earning capacity in
relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income NA
and earning capacity
14. TOTAL Rs.1,03,199/-
COMPENSATION
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9% per annum
16. Interest amount up to the @9% per annum
date of award
17. Total amount including to be calculated @ 9% per
interest annum
18. Award amount released Rs.1,03,199/-
19. Award amount kept in NA
FDRs
20. Mode of disbursement of Mentioned in the award
the award amount to the
petitioner (s).
21. Next date for compliance 21.04.2026
of the award.
Digitally
signed by
Anjani
Anjani mahajan
mahajan Date:
2026.01.21
16:00:41
+0530
(ANJANI MAHAJAN)
Presiding Officer : MACT (S)
Saket Courts : New Delhi
21.01.2026
Sh. Manish Kumar Vs Sh. Satya Pal Singh & Ors MACT No. 360/2022 Page No.31 of 31