Delhi District Court
Rakesh Kumar (Dar) vs Balindrar Singh (46/20 Slc) on 21 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. ADITI GARG
DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
PO MACT (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No. 83/2021
FIR No. 46/20
PS Sun Light Colony
U/s 279/338 IPC
CNR No.: DLSE01-
Rakesh Kumar Vs. Balinder Singh & Ors.
(compensation case of injured Rakesh Kumar)
Rakesh Kumar
S/o Mekhu Lal
R/o S. Block, Gali No.6, Prem Nagar-II, Kirari,
Suleman Nagar, New Delhi.
Versus
1. Balinder Singh
S/o Parsuram
R/o Virender Bhati ka makan
Devla, Surajpur, GTB Nagar, New Delhi.
..R-1/ Driver cum owner
2. Oriental Insurance Company Limited
C. P. Circus, United Life Building, New Delhi.
....R-2/ Insurance Co.
MACT No. 83/2021 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Balinder Singh & Anr. Page No. 1 of 40 (Ravi)
Date of accident : 29.02.2020
Date of filing of DAR : 29.01.2021
Date of Decision : 21.01.2026
AWARD
1. DAR
(a) The Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred to as
"DAR"), as filed by the Investigating Officer, is being treated as
a claim petition under Section 166(1) read with Section 166(4) of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The present claim pertains to the
alleged road traffic accident involving Rakesh Kumar
(hereinafter referred to as the injured), who is stated to have
suffered injuries due to the offending vehicle bearing
Registration No. DL 1LAC 3427. The said vehicle was being
driven and owned by Balinder Singh (hereinafter referred to as
Respondent No.1) and was insured with M/s Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Respondent No.2).
2. Brief Facts as per DAR:
(a) Preliminary information regarding the accident in question
was received at PS Sun Light Colony vide DD No. 33A dated
29.02.2020 in relation to the MLC of the injured received from
Jivan Hospital. Pursuant thereto, the concerned police official
proceeded to Jivan Hospital, where the MLC of the injured was
collected. As per the opinion of the doctor, the injured was
declared unfit for statement and was admitted in ICU. The MLC
also recorded the history of a road traffic accident. Thereafter, the
police official reached the spot of the accident, where one Mohd.
Abid produced the driver of the offending vehicle, namely a
truck bearing registration No. DL 1LAC 3427, along with the
MACT No. 83/2021 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Balinder Singh & Anr. Page No. 2 of 40 (Ravi)
said vehicle. The driver of the offending truck was given
pabandinama and the offending vehicle was immediately seized.
(b) Subsequently, the statement of the injured was recorded on
02.03.2020, wherein he stated that on 29.02.2020, he was coming
from Old Faridabad and was going towards his house at Nangloi
on his motorcycle bearing registration No. DL 4SCY 4130. Upon
reaching near Maharani Bagh Bus Stand, a Tata truck bearing
registration No. DL 1LAC 3427 which was moving ahead of him
suddenly applied brakes without any signal or indication, due to
which the injured as well as another motorcyclist bearing
registration No. DL 7SD 7104 collided with the rear portion of
the truck, resulting in the injured sustaining injuries. Public
persons shifted the injured to Jivan Hospital. It was alleged that
the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the offending truck.
(c) Consequent to the receipt of information, statement of the
injured and the MLC, FIR was registered and criminal law was
set into motion. Necessary investigation was carried out by the
Investigating Officer. The site plan was prepared. Notice under
Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act was served upon the
owner of the offending vehicle, to which it was replied that on
the date of the accident, the truck was being driven by Balinder
Singh. The offending vehicle was taken into police possession
and was mechanically inspected. All relevant documents
pertaining to the offending vehicle were seized and verified from
the concerned authorities and were found to be in order. Opinion
on the MLC was obtained, as per which the injuries sustained by
the injured were grievous in nature. Relevant penal provisions
MACT No. 83/2021 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Balinder Singh & Anr. Page No. 3 of 40 (Ravi)
under the IPC and Motor Vehicles Act were added. After
completion of a thorough investigation, charge sheet was filed
against the driver of the offending vehicle for causing grievous
injuries by driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
The Detailed Accident Report was also subsequently filed by the
Investigating Officer.
3. Reply:
(a) In response to the Detailed Accident Report, no written
statement or reply was filed by respondent no.1, who is the
driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle.
(b) The insurance company, however, filed a legal offer in the
present case, which itself reflects that it has not disputed either
the occurrence of the accident or the involvement of the
offending vehicle, nor the rash and negligent driving on the part
of its driver. However, a deduction of 50% was made in the said
legal offer on the ground of alleged contributory negligence on
the part of the claimant, on the premise that he failed to maintain
a safe distance from the vehicle moving ahead. The said legal
offer was not accepted by the claimant.
4. Issues:
(a) From the pleadings of parties, following issues were
framed vide order dated 13.12.2021:
i). Whether the injured suffered injuries in a road traffic accident on
29.02.2020 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no.
DL 1LAC 3427 being driven & owned by R-1 and insured with R-2?
OPP.
ii). Whether the injured is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what
extent and from whom?OPP
iii). Relief.
MACT No. 83/2021 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Balinder Singh & Anr. Page No. 4 of 40 (Ravi)
5. Evidence:
(a) The matter was thereafter listed for petitioner's evidence.
The injured, Rakesh Kumar, examined himself as PW-1 and
tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, which was exhibited
as Ex. PW1/A. He proved on record various documents relating
to his medical treatment, medical bills, copy of disability
certificate, salary proofs, copy of bank statement, driving licence,
Aadhaar Card, PAN Card, as well as the Detailed Accident
Report, which were collectively exhibited as Ex. PW1/1 to Ex.
PW1/10.
(b) PW-1 was duly cross-examined by learned counsel for the
insurance company. However, none appeared on behalf of
respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 to cross-examine the said
witness, despite opportunity.
(c) No further, evidence was led by petitioner side. Petitioner
Evidence was then closed. Matter was then listed for Respondent
Evidence. R-1/ driver cum owner chose not to lead any evidence.
Insurance Company also not led any evidence and as such
Respondent Evidence was closed and matter was then listed for
final arguments.
6. Final Arguments:
(a) Final arguments were addressed by learned counsel for the
claimant as well as learned counsel for insurance company.
(b) No one turned up on behalf of R-1/ driver cum owner to
make any submissions.
(c) Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the
accident in question occurred solely due to the rash and negligent
MACT No. 83/2021 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Balinder Singh & Anr. Page No. 5 of 40 (Ravi)
driving of the offending truck. It was argued that the injured was
lawfully riding his motorcycle and had no role in causing the
accident. The sudden application of brakes by the truck driver,
without any signal or indication, resulted in the collision and
consequent injuries to the injured.
(d) It was further submitted that due to the accident, the
injured suffered grievous injuries resulting in substantial
permanent disability in respect of his right lower limb. The said
disability has severely incapacitated the injured from performing
his job efficiently and has adversely affected his earning capacity
as well as his day-to-day functioning for the rest of his life.
Learned counsel argued that the physical impairment has also
caused loss of amenities of life, mental trauma and continuous
discomfort, thereby entitling the claimant to just, fair and
reasonable compensation under various heads as contemplated
under the Motor Vehicles Act. It was thus prayed that the
claimant be awarded adequate compensation commensurate with
the nature of injuries, extent of disability, loss of earning capacity
and the suffering undergone by him.
(c) Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance company
submitted that although the insurer has not disputed the
occurrence of the accident, the involvement of the offending
vehicle or the rashness on the part of the truck driver, the
claimant himself was also negligent and contributed to the
accident. It was contended that the injured failed to maintain a
safe and reasonable distance from the vehicle moving ahead of
him and, therefore, the present case is one of contributory
negligence.
MACT No. 83/2021 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Balinder Singh & Anr. Page No. 6 of 40 (Ravi)
(d) It was argued that in view of the facts and circumstances of
the case, at least 50% contributory negligence ought to be
fastened upon the claimant. In support of this contention, learned
counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Nishan Singh & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance
Company Limited & Ors., MANU/SC/0463/2018, wherein
emphasis has been laid upon the duty of a driver to maintain a
safe distance from the vehicle ahead.
(e) Learned counsel for the insurance company further argued
that there is no loss of income suffered by the claimant, as the
claimant himself has placed on record documents showing that
he continued to earn the same income even after the accident. It
was submitted that, in any case, while computing loss of income,
only the basic pay along with dearness allowance, and not the
entire salary reflected in the pay slip, can be considered. On these
grounds, learned counsel for the insurance company prayed for
reduction of compensation on account of contributory negligence
and denial of loss of income as claimed.
7. Discussion:
On the basis of material on record, evidence adduced and
arguments addressed, issue wise findings are as under :
Issue No.1
i). Whether the injured suffered injuries in a road traffic accident on
18.06.2023 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing
no. DL 3SFB 2146 being driven & owned by R-1 and insured with
R-2? OPP.
(a) PW-1, the injured claimant, entered the witness box and
affirmed the mode and manner of the accident, reiterating the
MACT No. 83/2021 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Balinder Singh & Anr. Page No. 7 of 40 (Ravi)
version earlier made before the police. He deposed that on
29.02.2020 at about 01.30 PM, while he was travelling from Old
Faridabad to his house at Nangloi on his motorcycle, and upon
reaching near Maharani Bagh Bus Stand, the offending truck
moving ahead of his motorcycle suddenly applied brakes without
any signal or indication, due to which he collided with the rear
portion of the truck and sustained serious injuries. He further
deposed that public persons removed him to the hospital and that
the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle. During cross-examination, PW-1 clarified that
the accident occurred on a road having three lanes on each side.
He stated that he was riding his motorcycle in the middle lane at
a speed of about 30-40 kmph. He further clarified that he first
noticed the offending truck when both vehicles took a turn from
the Ashram side and that the accident occurred approximately
500-700 metres after the said turn. He estimated the speed of the
offending truck to be around 40 kmph. PW-1 admitted that the
distance between his motorcycle and the truck was about three
feet at the time of collision. However, he categorically denied the
suggestion that he failed to maintain a safe distance or that the
accident occurred due to his own negligence. He further stated
that there was heavy traffic on the road at the time of the
accident.
(b) From the record, it is evident that information regarding
the accident was promptly given to the police and criminal law
was set into motion without any delay. The investigation was
conducted in a fair and proper manner. The site plan prepared
during investigation clearly depicts the place of occurrence and
corroborates the version of the claimant with respect to the
MACT No. 83/2021 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Balinder Singh & Anr. Page No. 8 of 40 (Ravi)
manner of the accident. The mechanical inspection report of the
offending vehicle also supports the occurrence of an accident.
The disclosure statement of the driver of the offending vehicle,
which forms part of the police record, also admits the occurrence
of the accident.
(c) It is further relevant to note that the statement of another
eyewitness, namely Mohd. Abid, was recorded during
investigation. He disclosed the mode and manner of the accident
in consonance with the version of the claimant and further stated
that his motorcycle also collided with the offending truck due to
sudden application of brakes by the truck driver. The
involvement of another motorcyclist, who also suffered due to
the same act of sudden braking, lends further credence to the
version of PW-1 and rules out the possibility of a solitary or self-
created incident.
(d) A perusal of the site plan further reveals that the accident
occurred just before the Maharani Bagh Bus Stand. The claimant
has consistently deposed that the road at the spot was a three-lane
carriageway on each side and that he was riding his motorcycle
in the middle lane while proceeding towards Nangloi. The site
plan further depicts a 'Y-shaped' diversion at the place of
accident, with one arm of the road leading towards Sarai Kale
Khan and the other towards Noida. In the given road
configuration, the possibility of the claimant freely changing
lanes appears to be constrained. The left lane was adjoining the
bus stop, where DTC buses usually halt, and the right lane was
occupied by vehicles proceeding towards Noida. In such
circumstances, the claimant was naturally required to continue in
the middle lane behind the offending truck. Owing to heavy
MACT No. 83/2021 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Balinder Singh & Anr. Page No. 9 of 40 (Ravi)
traffic conditions, as stated by PW-1, the claimant had limited
scope to either change lanes or maintain a wider distance from
the vehicle ahead. Thus, the road geometry, traffic flow and
presence of the bus stop reasonably explain why the claimant
could not maintain a greater distance from the offending truck at
the relevant time. This circumstance substantially dilutes the
allegation of contributory negligence raised by the insurance
company and rules out any inference of equal or substantial
negligence on the part of the claimant.
(e) The claimant appeared before this Tribunal and withstood
cross-examination, answering all material questions in a
consistent and cogent manner. His testimony remained unshaken
on material particulars. The accident itself is not disputed, as is
evident from the fact that the insurance company made a legal
offer in the present case. No written statement or evidence has
been led by the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle to
rebut the allegations of rash and negligent driving. Despite
having the liberty and opportunity, respondent no.1 did not step
into the witness box to explain the circumstances leading to
sudden application of brakes or to refute the case set up by the
claimant. The driver of the offending vehicle was the best person
to explain the manner of occurrence; however, he chose not to do
so. Even the insurance company, though disputing contributory
negligence, did not examine respondent no.1 on this aspect.
(f) In view of the consistent testimony of PW-1, corroborated
by contemporaneous police records, site plan, mechanical
inspection report, disclosure statement of the driver, and the
statement of an independent eyewitness, this Tribunal finds no
reason to disbelieve the testimony of the claimant. Accordingly, it
MACT No. 83/2021 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Balinder Singh & Anr. Page No. 10 of 40 (Ravi)
is held that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the
offending truck.
(g) From the evidence on record, it is established that the
offending truck was primarily responsible for the accident due to
sudden application of brakes in heavy traffic conditions. The
testimony of PW-1, corroborated by the statement of another
motorcyclist and police investigation, clearly indicates rash and
negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending
vehicle.
(h) At the same time, it cannot be completely ruled out that the
injured, who was riding behind the truck, was also required to
maintain a reasonable degree of caution and safe distance,
particularly in congested traffic. PW-1 himself admitted during
cross-examination that the distance between his motorcycle and
the offending truck at the time of collision was about three feet.
In the given traffic scenario, such distance cannot be said to be
entirely safe. It is also a matter of common prudence that a heavy
vehicle may be required to apply brakes in response to traffic
conditions ahead of it. Therefore, while the plea of 50%
contributory negligence as raised by the insurance company is
wholly excessive and unsupported by evidence, a limited degree
of contributory negligence on the part of the injured can
reasonably be inferred. Accordingly, this Tribunal holds that the
accident occurred primarily due to the rash and negligent driving
of the offending truck; however, a marginal contributory
negligence to the extent of 10% is attributable to the injured.
Consequently, the compensation payable shall be reduced to the
extent of 10%.
MACT No. 83/2021 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Balinder Singh & Anr. Page No. 11 of 40 (Ravi)
(i) Further, the police, after investigation, filed a charge-sheet
against the respondent driver for rash and negligent driving. It is
well settled that filing of a charge-sheet is a strong corroborative
circumstance pointing towards negligence. Accordingly, this
Tribunal holds that the accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the offending motorcycle by driver / R-1.
(Support drawn from the Judgment in the case of National Insurance
Company Vs. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 Delhi as referred and relied by
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Ranjeet & Anr. Vs. Abdul
Kayam Neb & Anr SLP (C) No. 10351/2019) . It is also settled that
adverse inference can be drawn against the driver of the
offending vehicle in case he does not appear as a witness to
depose and clarify about his stance in respect of the accident.
(support drawn from the judgment in the case of Cholamandlam
insurance company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh 2009 (3) AD Delhi 310.)
(j) It is a well-established legal principle that negligence in
motor accident cases should be determined based on the
preponderance of probabilities, not on proof beyond reasonable
doubt. The facts and circumstances must be considered in a broad
and practical manner. It is also settled that proceedings under the
Motor Vehicles Act are different from regular civil suits and are
not strictly governed by the technical rules of the Indian
Evidence Act. (as observed by Their Lordships of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Bimla Devi & Ors. v.
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors., (2009) 13 SCC
530 further referred and relied by Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in recent pronouncement in the case of Mathew Alexander
vs Mohammed Shafi SLP (Crl) No.8211 of 2022).
(k) In view of the above analysis of material on record
MACT No. 83/2021 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Balinder Singh & Anr. Page No. 12 of 40 (Ravi)
including evidence adduced on record, charge-sheet against R-1,
it is held that the accident was caused by speedy and reckless
driving on the part of driving of the offending vehicle. Issue No.1
is thus decided in favour of the petitioner and against the
respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2
"Whether the injured is entitled to any
compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?
OPP"
"The determination of quantum must be liberal, not niggardly since
the law values life and limb in a free country in generous scales"
{as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Concord of India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nirmala Devi
(1979 )4SCC 365}
9 Sec. 168 MV Act enjoins the Claim Tribunals to hold an
inquiry into the claim to determine the compensation payable and
pass an award. Relevant portion of Section 168 MV Act is
reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
"(1) Award of the Claims Tribunal.--On receipt of an
application for compensation made under section 166, the
Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the application to
the insurer and after giving the parties (including the insurer) an
opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim or, as
the case may be, each of the claims and, subject to the
provisions of section 162 may make an award determining the
amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and
specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be
paid and in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall specify
the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver
of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them,
as the case may be: Provided that where such application makes
a claim for compensation under section 140 in respect of the
death or permanent disablement of any person, such claim and
any other claim (whether made in such application or otherwise)
for compensation in respect of such death or permanent
disablement shall be disposed of in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter X.
MACT No. 83/2021 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Balinder Singh & Anr. Page No. 13 of 40 (Ravi)
.
.
8 "....Money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered." {as observed in the case of H. West and Son Limited Vs. Shephard 1958 -65 ACJ 504 (HL, England)}. It recognizes that the physical damage caused once cannot be fully undone. Something which remains as an indelible permanent sign of an unfortunate incident cannot be balanced merely by paying some monetary compensation. The process of damage and the ugly scars left on physical body and mental self, navigating through the entire process post accident and the unintended but compulsory turns that it brings in the course of life is indeed painful and traumatic. It is also required to be underlined that the damage is not restricted to the tangible injuries visible on the body of the injured rather catapults the lives of his family members also.
9. The assessment or grant of compensation is a small attempt to render assistance to the injured to navigate through the hairpin unanticipated sudden and traumatic turn in order to bring some elbow space for him to move towards stability and normalcy to the extent possible. The underlying principle remains thus to make good the damage so far as possible as equivalent in money.
10. Section 168 MV Act puts an obligation over Tribunal to assess 'just' compensation with the object of putting the sufferer in the same position as nearly as possible as he would have been if he had not sustained the wrong. It is worthwhile to reproduce certain observations made by Karnataka High Court in the case MACT No. 83/2021 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Balinder Singh & Anr. Page No. 14 of 40 (Ravi) of K. Narasimha Murthy v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd ILR 2004 KAR 2471 as referred and relied in the case of Rekha Jain Vs. National Insurance Company Limited Civil Appeal No. 5370- 5372 of 2013 which enumerates the milestones to be kept in mind by the Tribunal in an endevour to assess just compensation, at the same time acknowledging that any amount of money cannot compensate fully an injured man or completely renew a shattered human physical frame with the observations as under:
"16. The Courts and Tribunals, in bodily injury cases, while assessing compensation, should take into account all relevant circumstances, evidence, legal principles governing quantification of compensation. Further, they have to approach the issue of awarding compensation on the larger perspectives of justice, equity and good conscience and eschew technicalities in the decision-making. There should be realisation on the part of the Tribunals and Courts that the possession of one's own body is the first and most valuable of all human rights, and that all possessions and ownership are extensions of this primary right, while awarding compensation for bodily injuries. Bodily injury is to be treated as a deprivation which entitles a claimant to damages. The amount of damages varies according to gravity of injuries."
11. It is also settled that the monetary assessment is a methodology known to law as social and legal security to a victim even though the nature of injuries and the individual ramifications might vary in different cases, therefore, it is understandable that one remedy cannot heal all. Further, the loss is in the nature of deprivation and it is unlike a personal asset with a price tag which can be simply awarded and therefore, complete accuracy in making such assessment is not humanly possible. The endevour is thus to make an assessment as best and as fair as possible under the given circumstance. The uncertainty of bringing justness to an assessment has been recognized, still holding that substantial damages must be awarded. The MACT No. 83/2021 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Balinder Singh & Anr. Page No. 15 of 40 (Ravi) observations made by Lord Halsbury in the case of Mediana In re 1900 AC 113 (HL) give valuable insights into the aspect and reproduced as under:
"......Of course the whole region of inquiry into damages is one of extreme difficulty. You very often cannot even lay down any principle upon which you can give damages; nevertheless it is remitted to the jury or those who stand in place of the jury, to consider what compensation in money shall be given for what is a wrongful act. Take the most familiar and ordinary case: how is anybody to measure pain and suffering in money counted? Nobody can suggest that you can by any arithmetical calculation establish what is the exact amount of money which would represent such a thing as the pain and suffering which a person has undergone by reason of an accident....... But nevertheless the law recognises that as a topic upon which damages may be given"
12. The uncertainty involved has also been recognized by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rekha Jain (supra) where observations of Lord Blacburn in the case of Livingstone Vs. Rawyards Coal Company were referred as under:
".......where any injury is to be compensated by damages, in settling the sum of money to be given... you should as nearly as possible get at that sum of money which will put the party who has been injured.. in the same position as he would have been if he had not sustained the wrong...."
13. It is further observed by their Lordship in the case of Rekha Jain (supra) as follows:
"41.....Besides, the Court is well advised to remember that the measures of damages in all these cases 'should be such as to enable even a tortfeasor to say that he had amply atoned for his misadventure'. The observation of Lord Devlin that the proper approach to the problem or to adopt a test as to what contemporary society would deem to be a fair sum, such as would allow the wrongdoer to 'hold up his head among his neighbours and say with their approval that he has done the fair thing' is quite opposite to be kept in mind by the Court in assessing compensation in personal injury cases."
MACT No. 83/2021 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Balinder Singh & Anr. Page No. 16 of 40 (Ravi)
14. It is also settled that the compensation is not granted only for the physical injury but for the entire loss which results from the injury in an endevour to place the victim in a position as close as possible as prior to the accident (support drawn from National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors (2017) 16 SCC 680 also in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343). It is also settled as held in catena of judgments that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and the object of the Tribunal ought to be to assist the injured persons, (support drawn from Helen C Rebello (Mrs) & Ors. v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Anr (1999) 1 SCC 90).
15. It is settled that an injured is required to be compensated for his inability to lead full life, his inability to enjoy those natural 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 (support drawn from C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 as further referred and relied in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) and then in a recent pronouncement of Sidram Vs Divisonal Manager United India Insurance Company & Anr SLP (Civil) No.19277 of 2018).
16. What is required of the Tribunal is to attempt an objective assessment of damages as nearly as possible without fanciful or whimsical speculation even though, some conjecture specially in reference of the nature of disability and it consequence would be inevitable. {support drawn from the case of Raj Kumar (supra) as referred and relied in case of Sidram (supra)}.
17. Observing that a measure of damages cannot be arrived with precise mathematical calculations and that much depends upon MACT No. 83/2021 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Balinder Singh & Anr. Page No. 17 of 40 (Ravi) peculiar facts and circumstances of any matter, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India elaborated upon the expression "which appears to it to be just" in the case of Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty and Another, (2003) 7 SCC 197.
18. The observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K. Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited (2012) 12 SCC 274 provide valuable insights into the factors to be weighed by the Tribunal for determination of quantum of compensation, the relevant extract of which is reproduced as under:
"10. It is noteworthy to state that an adjudicating authority, while determining the quantum of compensation, has to keep in view the sufferings of the injured person which would include his inability to lead a full life, his incapacity to enjoy the normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries and his ability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. Hence, while computing compensation the approach of the Tribunal or a court has to be broad- based. Needless to say, it would involve some guesswork as there cannot be any mathematical exactitude or a precise formula to determine the quantum of compensation. In determination of compensation the fundamental criterion of "just compensation" should be inhered."
19. The compensation has been broadly delineated as pecuniary and non pecuniary in the case of R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control India Pvt Ltd. 1995 AIR 755. It is worthwhile to reproduce certain observations made therein:
"9....while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial;
MACT No. 83/2021 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Balinder Singh & Anr. Page No. 18 of 40 (Ravi)
(iii) other material loss. So far non- pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life."
20. The issue of determination of compensation in a personal injury matter was extensively deliberated by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) Relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced hereunder for further discussion:
6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the 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 MACT No. 83/2021 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Balinder Singh & Anr. Page No. 19 of 40 (Ravi) compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)
(b),
(iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.
7. Assessment of pecuniary damages under Item (i) and under Item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses-- Item (iii)--depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non- pecuniary damages--Items (iv), (v) and (vi)--involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decisions of this Court and the High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability--Item (ii)
(a). We are concerned with that assessment in this case..."
21. Loss of earning during the period of treatment:
(a) PW-1/claimant deposed that at the time of the accident he was employed with Grand Columbus International School, Old Faridabad, as a Lab Assistant and was earning Rs.20,336/- per month. In support of his claim regarding income and employment, the claimant placed on record one salary slip for the month of February 2020, reflecting a gross salary of Rs.20,336/-
comprising Basic Pay, HRA, DA, TA, and Special Allowance. The said salary slip (Ex.PW1/7) bears the name of the injured as Rakesh Kumar, Employee Code EMP034, designation as "Lab Attendant", and is duly stamped and signed by the Principal of the school.
(b) Apart from the salary slip, the claimant also filed a computer-generated copy of his bank statement for the period from 01.04.2020 to 30.08.2020, which reflects credit entries MACT No. 83/2021 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Balinder Singh & Anr. Page No. 20 of 40 (Ravi) towards salary from the said school. The salary credited for April 2020 on 29.04.2020 amounts to Rs.13,163/-. No salary was credited in May 2020. A sum of Rs.13,163/- was credited on 30.06.2020 towards salary of June 2020 and again Rs.13,163/- on 01.07.2020 (probably towards salary of May 2020). Further, Rs.6,580/- and Rs.6,583/- were credited for the months of July and August 2020 respectively.
(c) A careful analysis of the said credits reveals that the amounts of Rs.13,163/- correspond to the total of Basic Pay and HRA as reflected in the salary slip (Rs.9,078/- + Rs.4,085/-). The subsequent credits of approximately Rs.6,580/- appear to be nearly half of the said amount, indicating partial payment of salary. There is no cogent material on record to disbelieve the duly authorised and stamped salary slip for the month of February 2020, which pertains to the very month in which the accident occurred. The reduction in salary in subsequent months appears to be attributable to two probable factors; firstly, the reduction in earning capacity of the injured owing to the injuries sustained and consequent physical limitations; and secondly, the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, during which almost all office, departments, educational institutions remained closed and salaries across sectors were either reduced, deferred, or partially paid. A notice can be taken of the fact that income and employment in urban areas were severely affected during the said period. Thus, it stands established that the injured was employed with the said school and was earning at the time of the accident, though his income was subsequently reduced for reasons beyond his control. The contention of the learned counsel for the insurance company that only Basic Pay and HRA should be MACT No. 83/2021 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Balinder Singh & Anr. Page No. 21 of 40 (Ravi) considered is not acceptable. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Sharma & Ors. v. Bachitar Singh & Ors. 2011 AIR SCW 2811, wherein it was held that fixed allowances, which are regularly paid and meant for the benefit of the employee and his family, form part of income for the purpose of computation of compensation. However, the amount of Rs.4,211/- shown as Special Allowance is excluded, as there is no clarity regarding its nature, whether it is fixed or variable, or the specific purpose for which it is paid. Accordingly, the monthly income of the injured is assessed by including Basic Pay, HRA, DA, and TA, which comes to Rs.16,125/-.
(d) It is further alleged that due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the claimant remained out of employment for a considerable period as he was undergoing treatment for a prolonged duration and consequently suffered loss of income. However, the claimant has candidly admitted that no medical document issued by any doctor certifying that he was completely unfit to perform the duties of a Lab Assistant or any other active work has been filed on record. As per the discharge summary, the claimant sustained a fracture of the right supracondylar femur following a road traffic accident and was treated as a case of puncture compound injury, for which BB splint was applied. He was also managed in ICU with administration of intravenous antibiotics and fluids. The claimant remained admitted at Jivan Hospital from 29.02.2020 to 03.03.2020 and was thereafter referred to Lok Nayak Hospital, where he remained under treatment from 03.03.2020 to 18.03.2020. Subsequent to his discharge from the hospital, the claimant continued to receive treatment on OPD basis and remained under medical care for a MACT No. 83/2021 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Balinder Singh & Anr. Page No. 22 of 40 (Ravi) period of nearly two months, as reflected from the medical record. The nature of injury, period of hospitalization, and prolonged follow-up treatment clearly indicate that the claimant would not have been in a position to resume his normal duties immediately after discharge.
(e) The probable reasons for reduction in the claimant's earnings in the subsequent months have already been discussed hereinabove. At the same time, it is also evident from the bank statement that the claimant did receive salary (however same was reduced) in the months following the accident. Thus, while there is no material to conclude that the claimant suffered total loss of income for an extended duration, the loss of salary for the month of March 2020 and the partial reduction of salary thereafter cannot be ignored. In order to strike a just and equitable balance between the evidence on record and the surrounding circumstances, the loss of income of the claimant is reasonably assessed for a period of four months.
(f) The income is thus calculated to be Rs.16,125/- x 4 = Rs.64,500/-.
22. Loss of future earning
(a) It is part of record that petitioner has been opined with 51% permanent physical in relation to his right lower limb.
(b) Before proceeding further, it is important to understand as to what disability means and also types thereof. This aspect has been delved into by Hon'ble SC in Raj Kumar (supra):
"8. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a human being. Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of MACT No. 83/2021 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Balinder Singh & Anr. Page No. 23 of 40 (Ravi) use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor accident injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 ("the Disabilities Act", for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in Section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming compensation."
(c) The term 'disability' means the decrements to the functional efficacy of body of injured whereas 'functioning' encompass all the body functions and activities for an independent life. Functional disability is to determine the extent of loss or extent of restrictive functionality considering the nature of activities required to be necessarily performed in efficient discharge of duties and the limb effected. This computes the extent of adverse effect of physical disability upon the functional efficacy of an injured person, in turn adversely impacting his earning capacity. The process entails understanding and enumerating the skill set required for performing specific activities. To sum up, functional disability basically measures the extent of ability having been compromised to carry out basic everyday tasks or even more complex tasks required for and independent living. The limitations may occur on account of MACT No. 83/2021 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Balinder Singh & Anr. Page No. 24 of 40 (Ravi) disability in the personal sphere, in the social sphere and in the occupational sphere. In the personal sphere it may encompass the daily activities of a person, his body function and his involvement in basis life situations. At the societal level, it could mean difficulty in involvement and participation in social and community activities interfering the interpersonal interaction and relationship adversely impacting the civic life. When disability restricts the vocation or employment avenues to make earning for his living, it falls in the category of disability in the occupational sphere. The disability might occur on account of age or any illness and in the case at hand by way of an accident. A person living a normal life in particular set of circumstance and making his living by engaging in any work has suffered disability which might impead his daily life activities, both on a personal and social scale and might also impact his ability to continue earning as much as before and his future employment avenues.
(d). What is thus required to be assessed is the effect and impact of disability upon the working efficiency of injured and whether it would adversely impact his earning capabilities in future. It is settled that the Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity.
(e). Hon'ble SC laid down certain guidelines for the Tribunal to be able to arrive at an objective figure to quantify the loss for the purpose of computing the compensation in the judgment of Raj Kumar (supra). Relevant extracts of this judgment for the purpose of further discussion are reproduced hereunder:
"Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent MACT No. 83/2021 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Balinder Singh & Anr. Page No. 25 of 40 (Ravi) disability
9. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the same as 45% permanent disability with reference to the whole body. The extent of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of a percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole body. If there is 60% permanent disability of the right hand and 80% permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent of permanent disability with reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the body have suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to the whole body cannot obviously exceed 100%.
10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation.
11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that the percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation. (See for example, the decisions of this Court in MACT No. 83/2021 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Balinder Singh & Anr. Page No. 26 of 40 (Ravi) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC 254 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1258 : (2010) 10 Scale 298] and Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC 341 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1285 : (2010) 8 Scale 567] )
12. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and, if so, the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the Tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence:
(i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary;
(ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement;
(iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is, the permanent disability suffered by the person.
If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity.
13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood.
.
.
.
.
19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above:
MACT No. 83/2021 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Balinder Singh & Anr. Page No. 27 of 40 (Ravi)
(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.
(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that the percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as the percentage of permanent disability).
(iii) The doctor who treated an injured claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard to the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety.
(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors."
(f) Further in the case of "Mohan Soni Vs. Ram Avtar Tomar & Ors. I (2012) ACC 1 (SC), the question at hand was deliberated and following observations as relevant in the context were made:
"In the context of loss of future earning, any physical disability resulting from an accident has to be judged with reference to the nature of work being performed by the person suffering the disability. This is the basic premise and once that is grasped, it clearly follows that the same injury or loss may affect two different persons in different ways. Take the case of a marginal farmer who does his cultivation work himself and ploughs his land with his own two hands; or the puller of a cycle-rickshaw, one of the main means of transport in hundreds of small towns all over the country. The loss of one of the legs either to the marginal farmer or the cycle-rickshaw-puller would be the end of the road insofar as their earning capacity is concerned. But in case of a person engaged in some kind of desk work in an office, the loss of a leg may not have the same effect. The loss of a leg (or for that matter the loss of any limb) to anyone is bound to have very traumatic effects on one's personal, family or social life but the loss of one of the legs to a person working in the office would not interfere with his work/earning MACT No. 83/2021 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Balinder Singh & Anr. Page No. 28 of 40 (Ravi) capacity in the same degree as in the case of a marginal farmer or a cycle-rickshaw-puller.
(g) The question of assessment of impact of disability on the earning capacity has been dealt in several cases but it is understood that each case has to be evaluated on its contextual dynamics established by way of evidence at hand. It brings us to a question whether extent of permanent disability as medically determined can simply be taken to be the extent of functional disability and hence, the loss of earning capacity. It has been held in various pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Hon'ble High Court that equating the two as a criteria would result in an inobjective and absurd compensation. There however, might be certain cases where the two would correspond to each other but it cannot be mechanically applied rather requires evaluation of applicable factors independently in each case to reach at a fair quantification of loss of earning capacity.
(h) In the case of Raj Kumar (supra), the physical functional disability of left leg was assessed to be 75% and total body disability at 37.5 %. In this case, functional disability was also assessed at 75% and it was observed that the extent of physical functional disability has to be considered so as to grant just and proper compensation towards loss of future earning as the earning capacity of injured was totally negated having been rendered incapable of doing any manual work. It was also held that if permanent disability in relation to particular limb renders the injured permanently disabled from pursuing his normal vocation or any other similar work, there is no reason as to why compensation should be granted on the basis of physical disability in relation to whole body. In another matter of Syed MACT No. 83/2021 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Balinder Singh & Anr. Page No. 29 of 40 (Ravi) Sadiq Etc vs Divisional Manager,United India AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT 1052, where functional disability was considered to be 65% by Hon'ble High Court in case of a vegetable vendor whose right leg had to be amputated was set aside and it was observed that loss of limb is often equivalent to loss of livelihood specially in manual labour cases and determined the functional disability at 85%. In another matter of Arvind Kumar Mishra, injured suffered grievous injuries and remained in coma for about 2 months and was held to be permanently disabled to the extent of 70% with his right hand amputated whereas his loss of earning capacity was held to be 90%. Similarly in case of K Janardhan v United India Insurance Company AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2384, Hon'ble Supereme Court of India, held that a tanker driver suffered 100% functional disability and incapacity to earn as a tanker driver as his right leg was amputated from the knee. In the case of Pappu Deo Yadav v Naresh Kumar, AIR 2020 SC 4424, injured suffered loss of an arm and therefore, was unable to carry out his functions as a typist / data entry operator and thus acknowledging the impact of injury upon the income generating capacity of victim, the extent of functional disablement and loss of income generating earning capacity was equated with the extent of permanent disablement as medically assessed at 89%. Similarly, in the case of Sidram (supra), injured suffered paraplegia due to accident and was medically assessed with permanent disability to the tune of 45%, however, he was held to have suffered 100% loss of earning capacity.
(i) It is an admitted position that the claimant has suffered 51% permanent physical disability in relation to his right lower limb, MACT No. 83/2021 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Balinder Singh & Anr. Page No. 30 of 40 (Ravi) as per the disability certificate proved on record. The claimant has further testified that he left his earlier employment with the school about two years prior to his deposition and is presently engaged in part-time work as a driver and also assists at a dairy shop, earning approximately Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/- per month. The medical disability assessed at 51% is confined to the right lower limb and, therefore, does not automatically translate into equivalent loss of earning capacity. The functional disability is required to be assessed with reference to the nature of work being performed by the claimant before and after the accident, his educational qualifications, age, and the extent to which the disability impacts his ability to earn.
(j) Prior to the accident, the claimant was employed as a Lab Assistant/Lab Attendant in a school, a job which involves standing for long hours, movement within laboratories, handling of equipment, and physical mobility. The disability of the right lower limb would undoubtedly affect his efficiency, stamina, and ability to perform such duties with the same ease and continuity as prior to the accident. This appears to be the reason why the claimant could not continue in his previous employment and had to shift to alternative means of livelihood. At the same time, it is evident from the claimant's own deposition that he has not been rendered completely incapacitated from earning. He continues to earn by engaging in part-time work as a driver and by working at a dairy shop. Though the earnings in subsequent years would ordinarily be expected to increase with time, experience, and inflation, the claimant's income has, as per his own testimony, remained confined to approximately Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/-
per month, which is substantially lower than his assessed pre- MACT No. 83/2021 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Balinder Singh & Anr. Page No. 31 of 40 (Ravi) accident income. Thus, while the claimant has demonstrated a reduction in his earning capacity attributable to the permanent disability, the evidence on record does not justify treating the loss as total or equating it with the full extent of physical disability. A realistic and pragmatic view must be taken to balance the medical evidence with the economic realities reflected from the claimant's own statement. In the considered opinion of this Tribunal, the functional disability of the claimant, affecting his earning capacity, is reasonably assessed at 25%, which adequately reflects the impact of the permanent physical disability on his long-term ability to earn, without overlooking the fact that he continues to remain gainfully employed, although, at a reduced level.
21(i) Future Prospect:
(a) It is also held therein that future prospect (as laid down in the well considered judgment of National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680) shall be payable, not only in fatal cases but also in the case of permanent disability. The observations made in the said case as relevant to the context are reproduced hereunder:
"6. The principle consistently followed by this court in assessing motor vehicle compensation claims, is to place the victim in as near a position as she or he was in before the accident, with other compensatory directions for loss of amenities and other payments. These general principles have been stated and reiterated in several decisions.
7. Two questions arise for consideration: one, whether in cases of permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor accident, the claimant can seek, apart from compensation for future loss of income, amounts for future Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. [Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683. This court referred to the pronouncements in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) MACT No. 83/2021 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Balinder Singh & Anr. Page No. 32 of 40 (Ravi) (P) Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 551; Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka (2009) 6 SCC 1; Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan (2009) 13 SCC 422; Raj Kumar v.
Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343. Govind Yadav spelt out these principles by stating that the courts should, "in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily. If the victim of the accident suffers permanent disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the loss of earning and his inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident." These decisions were also followed in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar Mohanty, (2018) 3 SCC 686. prospects too; and two, the extent of disability. On the first question, the High Court no doubt, is technically correct in holding that Pranay Sethi involved assessment of compensation in a case where the victim died. However, it went wrong in saying that later, the three-judge bench decision in Jagdish was not binding, but rather that the subsequent decision in Anant10 to the extent that it did not award compensation for future prospects, was binding. This court is of the opinion that there was no justification for the High Court to have read the previous rulings of this court, to exclude the possibility of compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement. Such a narrow reading of Pranay Sethi11 is illogical, because it denies altogether the possibility of the living victim progressing further in life in accident cases - and admits such possibility of future prospects, in case of the victim's death.
(b) Hon'ble Supreme Court further discussed several cases involving permanent disability and observed as under:
"20. Courts should not adopt a stereotypical or myopic approach, but instead, view the matter taking into account the realities of life, both in the assessment of the extent of disabilities, and compensation under various heads. .
.
What is to be seen, as emphasized by decision after decision, is the impact of the injury upon the income generating capacity of the victim. The loss of a limb (a leg or arm) and its severity on that account is to be judged in relation to the profession, vocation or business of the victim; there cannot be a blind arithmetic formula for ready application. On an overview of MACT No. 83/2021 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Balinder Singh & Anr. Page No. 33 of 40 (Ravi) the principles outlined in the previous decisions, it is apparent that the income generating capacity of the appellant was undoubtedly severely affected".
(c) Aadhar Card (Ex.PW1/9) shows his date of birth as 27.08.1974, as such, his age as on the date of accident was about 45 years and 6 months. Since the injured was between age of 40 to 50 years (at the time of accident) and purportedly earning fixed income thus as mandated in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) and other case laws, the percentage towards future prospect is taken to be @ 25 %. Further, as tabulated in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), multiplier of 14 is applicable.
(d) In view of the above discussion of law, the calculation under future loss of income in the present case is as under:
(i) Annual income (Rs.16,125/-. x12) = Rs.1,93,500/-
(ii) Future prospect (25% of Rs.1,93,500/-) = Rs. 48,375/-
__________________
(iii) Total = 2,41,875/-
(iv) Thus, Multiplicand = 2,41,875/-
(v) Hence, the 'Total Loss of Future Income' shall be :-
(vi) Percentage of Functional Disability (Multiplicand X Multiplier).
25% (2,41,875/- x 14) = Rs.8,46,562/-
22. The compensation awarded against pecuniary and non-
pecuniary damages under various heads is being sequentially put in a tabulated form hereunder for ease of reference to all concerned:
Sl. no. Pecuniary loss : - Quantum
1. (i) Expenditure on treatment : The Rs.32,877/-
MACT No. 83/2021 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Balinder Singh & Anr. Page No. 34 of 40 (Ravi) claimant has filed original medical bills on record, exhibited as Ex. PW1/4, amounting to Rs. 32,877/-. The said bills appear to be genuine and authentic, duly corroborated with the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant. The same have also not been disputed by the respondents during the course of trial.
Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 32,877/- is awarded to the claimant under the head of medical expenses.
.
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance : No Rs. 20,000/- documentary proof has been filed by the claimant regarding expenditure on conveyance. However, considering the medical condition of the injured, the fractures sustained by him and the repeated visits to the hospital for treatment and follow-up, which would necessarily have required assistance of support persons including family members, it can be reasonably inferred that the claimant must have incurred substantial expenditure on conveyance.
Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- is awarded to the claimant under the head of conveyance charges.
(iii) Expenditure on special diet : There Rs.30,000/- is no prescription for special diet. The nature of injuries sustained by the injured suggest that he must have been advised and would have required to consume healthy wholesome protein rich diet for efficient and prompt recovery.
By guess work, compensation can be awarded for special diet.
(iv) Cost of nursing / attendant : No Rs.30,000/- document pertaining to attendant charges has been filed on record by the claimant.
MACT No. 83/2021 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Balinder Singh & Anr. Page No. 35 of 40 (Ravi) However, considering the nature and severity of the injuries sustained, it can be reasonably presumed that the injured would have remained dependent upon a support person, either by availing paid services or assistance rendered by his family members, to cater to his day-to-
day needs during the period of recovery.
It is well settled that even in the absence of documentary proof, compensation towards attendant charges is liable to be awarded, including in cases where such services are rendered gratuitously by family members. A sum of Rs.30,000/- is awarded under this head.
(v) Loss of income : As discussed Rs.64,500/-. above:
2. Non-Pecuniary Loss :
(I) Compensation of mental and Rs.2,00,000/- physical shock as well as pain and suffering : Considering the injuries sustained by injured and discussed earlier it is considered that he must have suffered immense physical, mental and emotional trauma for what he was compelled to undergo on account of injuries sustained in the accident. There is no measure with the court to quantify the pain and suffering of the injured, however, an attempt is being made to compensate in terms of money for the agony she must have suffered. Therefore, an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- is awarded to the injured against pain, suffering as well as mental trauma sustained in the accident.
(iii) Loss of amenities of life : It Rs.20,000/- compensates the victim on account of his inability to enjoy the basic amenities of life as any other normal person can, taking into account the age and the deprivation he would have to undergo MACT No. 83/2021 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Balinder Singh & Anr. Page No. 36 of 40 (Ravi) and suffer due to injuries. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by claimant, an amount of Rs. 20,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities.
(iv) Loss of future Income: As discussed Rs.8,46,562/- above:
Total Compensation Rs.12,43,939/-
Deduction, if any, 10% deduction towards contributory negligence as such Rs.
1,24,393/- is being deducted Total Compensation after deduction Rs.11,19,546/- Interest As directed below
23. Interest :
(a). It is settled that any fixed rate of interest cannot be prescribed for all cases at all times and would largely depend upon the prevailing rate of interest as per the applicable guidelines. As such, interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum is deemed fit and accordingly granted in the present case. (Reliance placed upon National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Yad Ram MAC APP 526/2018 also referred and relied in case of The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Sohan Lal & Ors. MAC APP 70/2024 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court).
24. LIABILITY
(a) The issue of rash and negligent driving has already been discussed and decided hereinabove, wherein it has been held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the MACT No. 83/2021 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Balinder Singh & Anr. Page No. 37 of 40 (Ravi) offending vehicle by respondent no.1. The Insurance Company has admitted the validity and genuineness of the insurance policy in respect of the offending vehicle on the date of accident and also proposed legal offer. No statutory defence under the Motor Vehicles Act has been pleaded or proved by the Insurance Company. In view of the above facts, and in the absence of any statutory defence, the Insurance Company is under a legal obligation to indemnify the insured/owner for the vicarious liability arising out of the tortious act of respondent no.1. Accordingly, the principal award amount/compensation shall be payable by the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle, along with simple interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the DAR till its actual realization. (If there is any order regarding excluding of interest for specific period same be complied at the time of calculation of award amount. Further, in case the matter adjourned sine die, interest for the period i.e. the date of concerned order till revival of the case, shall not be awarded. Further, if any auction proceeds is received, same be adjusted in the final award amount).
25. The award amount shall be deposited by the Insurance Company. Counsel for the Insurance Company is also directed to furnish the complete case details, including the MACT case number, CNR number, FIR number, name of Police Station, name of the deceased/claimant(s), date of accident, and any other relevant particulars, to the State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi at the time of getting the amount deposited. The amount shall be deposited through RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in the account titled "MACT FUND PARKING", Account No. 00000042706870765, IFSC Code SBIN0014244, MICR Code MACT No. 83/2021 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Balinder Singh & Anr. Page No. 38 of 40 (Ravi) 110002342, under intimation to the Nazir of this Tribunal.
26. Release of Award Amount/ Disbursement
(a) Out of total award amount Rs.8,00,000/- is kept in form of monthly FDR of Rs.10,000/- each. Remaining amount shall be released in bank account of injured.
27. In terms of the Practice Directions issued by Hon'ble High Court, vide reference no. 134/Rules/DHC, dated 14.05.2025, the claimant (s) are directed to produce their bank account details along with either a certificate of the banker giving all details of the bank account of the person or persons entitled to receive the compensation including IFS Code, or a copy of cancelled cheque of the bank account to this Tribunal with seven days of the date of Award, if not already placed on record. They are also directed to file their Aadhar Card and PAN Card if not already filed.
28. Directions to the Branch Manager, SBI, Saket Court Complex
(a). The Manager, SBI, Saket Court Complex, is further directed to verify the documents and details submitted by the claimant pertaining to their bank account, and upon proper verification, under certification of the Branch Manager (of the bank whose details have been provided by the claimant for release of the compensation amount) disburse the amount, directed to be released to the claimant, directly into the verified bank account of the claimant under notice to the Tribunal.
29. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD.
1 Date of accident 29.02.2020 MACT No. 83/2021 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Balinder Singh & Anr. Page No. 39 of 40 (Ravi) 2 Name of injured Rakesh Kumar 3 Age of the injured 45 years 4 Occupation of the injured Lab Attendant 5 Income of the injured Rs.16,125/-
6 Nature injury Grievous injury + disability 7 Medical treatment taken As per record.
by the injured:
8 Period of Hospitalization As per record. 9 Whether any permanent Grievous injury+ disability disability?
30. Copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost. The copy of award be also sent to the Ld. Secretary DLSA and concerned criminal court. Digitally signed by ADITI ADITI GARG Date:
(Pronounced in the open court on 21.01.2026) GARG 2026.01.21 16:22:31 +0530 (Aditi Garg) PO-MACT-01 (South-East) Saket Court/ New Delhi 21.01.2026 MACT No. 83/2021 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Balinder Singh & Anr. Page No. 40 of 40 (Ravi)