Delhi District Court
Rajesh Sharma vs Mohar Pal on 15 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANISH SHARMA, PO, MACT,
DISTRICT NORTH -EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
DAR No.: 187/19
DLNE01-00-1699-2019
IN THE MATTER OF:
Rajesh Sharma
S/o Brij Pal Sharma
R/o H.No. 75-A, Gali No. 1,
D-Block, Dayalpur,
North-East Delhi-94. .....Petitioner
Vs.
1. Mohar Pal
S/o Kali Charan .....Driver (Respondent no. 1)
2. Kali Charan
S/o Vishuna Lal .....Owner (Respondent no. 2)
Both R/o Village Himmatpur Sai,
PO & PS Kasganj, Distt. Kasganj,
UP.
3. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd.
At Plot No. 6, Adjacent to Metro Pillar No. 81,
Pusa Road, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi-110005.
..... Insurance Company (Respondent no. 3)
Date of institution of claim petition : 24.04.2019
Date of Arguments : 15.05.2026
Date of Award : 15.05.2026
MACT No. 187/19 Rajesh Sharma vs. Mohar Pal & Ors. Page No. 1 of 27
AWARD
Vide this award, This Tribunal shall decide petition bearing no.
187/2019 under section 166 & 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 filed by the
the petitioner and against respondents as mentioned in the memo of parties.
FACTS OF THE CASE
1. Brief facts of this petition are that on 09.07.2018, at about 8:00 pm, the petitioner alongwith his friend (Raju) was returning from Ujhani to his home (Parental Village) on his motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-5SBY-5089 at moderate speed and on the correct side of the road. When he reached at Near Butla Vot Kinkit, Bareilly, Mathura Road, UP, suddenly a Pick-up Van (offending vehicle) bearing registration No. UP-87T-2279 came rashly from wrong side and from opposite direction and forcefully hit the petitioner's motorcycle. Consequently, the petitioner and his friend sustained grievous injuries on their body. Both the injured were immediately taken to the Govt. Hospital Badayun, UP for treatment. Accordingly, an FIR bearing No. 412/2018, U/s: 279/338/427 PC P.S. Ujhani, Distt. Badayun, UP was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle.
WS / Reply of Respondents
2. Written statement not filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 & 2 i.e. the driver and owner of the offending vehicle.
3. Respondent no. 3 i.e. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd., filed its detailed written statement. The insurance company averred MACT No. 187/19 Rajesh Sharma vs. Mohar Pal & Ors. Page No. 2 of 27 that there was head-on collision, and both the vehicles were coming from opposite directions and therefore, the claimant also contributed 50% negligence in the accident. 50% of the amount should be deducted towards contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. It is also mentioned that accident occurred out of Delhi, and the FIR was lodged after 06 days of occurring of alleged accident against unknown person in UP. It is further mentioned that at the time of accident, the claimant was not holding a valid and effective driving license, and hence, Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimant.
ISSUES
4. Upon completion of pleadings, following issues were framed on 20.11.2019 :
(i) Whether petitioner sustained injuries in motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of driver of vehicle No. UP-87T-2279 i.e. by respondent no.1 on 09.07.2018 at about 8:00 PM at Near Village Butla Vot Kinkit, Bareilly, Mathura Road, UP, within the jurisdiction of PS Ujhani, Distt. Badaun, UP? OPP
(ii) Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
(iii) Relief.
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE 5.1. Petitioner Sh. Rajesh Sharma examined himself as PW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW-1/A, wherein he reiterated the pleadings of the claim petition and exhibited the following documents:
MACT No. 187/19 Rajesh Sharma vs. Mohar Pal & Ors. Page No. 3 of 27 Sl. No. Exhibit No. Particulars
01. Ex.PW1/1 Aadhar card and voter card of petitioner (colly. 2 pages)
02. Ex PW1/2 Certified copy of criminal record (Page no. 13 to 22)
03. Ex PW1/3 (Page no. Treatment record of petitioner 25 to 28 and 1 & 2)
04. Ex PW1/4 (Page no. Medical bills of petitioner 3 to 37) (objected to mode of proof) In his cross-examination on behalf of Ld. counsel for R-3/Insurance company, PW-1 deposed that he was riding the motorcycle with Raju Mishra (pillion rider) at the time of accident. He further deposed that he has not filed his driving license which was issued from Badaun, UP as same was lost. The motorcycle bearing registration number 5089 was registered in his name and was duly insured. He further deposed that he has not filed copy of the RC and insurance policy. He further deposed that he has not filed his income proof. He was working as a Tailor and doing stitching work. He had not filed copy of work order from contractors.
He further deposed that he was going from Town Ujhayani to Village Gadora, Distt. Badaun, UP at about 7.30 p.m. and accident took place at about 7.30 - 8.00 p.m. He further deposed that as soon as they reached to Butla Vot, a pick-up van came from front and hit his motorcycle when he was about to cross the road. He further deposed that the pick-up van was at a distance when he was trying to cross the road on his motorcycle. The MACT No. 187/19 Rajesh Sharma vs. Mohar Pal & Ors. Page No. 4 of 27 driver of the van was driving it at a very high speed and the vehicle seemed to be dis-balanced due to which it hit his motorcycle. He further deposed that he was grievously injured and his left leg got fractured at four places. He was in mental shock but was not completely unconscious after the accident. The pick up van was stopped after the accident but the driver ran away after the accident. Police seized the offending vehicle on the spot.
He denied the suggestion that he was negligently crossing the road from wrong side without observing the traffic rules due to which the accident occurred. After the accident, he fell down on the 'Kachcha' portion near the road. The police arrived within 10 minutes and took him to the hospital. His friend Raju Mishra, who was the pillion rider, also suffered injuries but he did not file any claim petition.
He admitted that he was not wearing helmet and his friend Raju Mishra was also not wearing helmet at the time of accident. He denied the suggestion that he was not holding driving license at the time of accident and that he should be liable for contributory negligence.
5.2. Petitioner also examined PW-2 Dr. Binod Kalita. He produced the summoned record of the disability certificate bearing no. 88/DBN/2020/7857 dated 19.12.2020 (Ex.PW2/1). He deposed that he was one of the board members who issued the disability certificate. The disability percentage is 27% with respect to his left lower Limb.
In his cross-examination on behalf of Ld. Counsel for R-3/Insurance company, PW-2 deposed that he was member of Medical Board and the MACT No. 187/19 Rajesh Sharma vs. Mohar Pal & Ors. Page No. 5 of 27 disability cannot be commented in relation to the whole body. He further deposed that the patient can do tailoring work. However, he cannot squat and long walking and running. He can do normal walking.
Thereafter Petitioner Evidence was closed on 28.04.2022.
Respondents' Evidence
6. Respondents did not lead any evidence and the respondents evidence came to be closed vide order dt 10.11.2022.
7. Statement of the petitioner was recorded as per Clause 29 of MCTAP on 10.10.2022. He stated that he was injured and sustained 27% permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb. He had undergone treatment for about 6 to 7 months from the date of accident i.e. 09.07.2018 at Shri Siddhi Vinayak Hospital, Bareilly, UP. He has already filed on record treatment papers. He is 5th pass. He is married, having wife and five children i.e. three daughters and two sons. He stated that his mother is also residing with him. His father is already pre-deceased. He was working as a tailor and was earning about Rs. 20,000/- p.m. at the time of accident. He has not placed any income proof on record.
8. Final arguments heard. File perused.
Issue wise findings are as under:
Issue no.1 Whether petitioner sustained injuries in motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of driver of vehicle No. UP-87T-2279 i.e. by respondent MACT No. 187/19 Rajesh Sharma vs. Mohar Pal & Ors. Page No. 6 of 27 no.1 on 09.07.2018 at about 8:00 PM at Near Village Butla Vot Kinkit, Bareilly, Mathura Road, UP, within the jurisdiction of PS Ujhani, Distt. Badaun, UP? OPP
9. On this issue, petitioner examined himself as PW1 and testified that on 09.07.2018, at about 8:00 pm, he alongwith his friend (Raju) was returning from Ujhani to his home (Parental Village) on his motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-5SBY-5089 at a moderate speed and on the correct side of the road. When they reached at Near Butla Vot Kinkit, Bareilly, Mathura Road, UP, suddenly a Pick-up Van bearing registration No. UP-87T-2279 came rashly from wrong side and from opposite direction and forcefully hit his motorcycle. Consequently, he and his friend sustained grievous injuries on their body. Both the injured were immediately taken to the Govt. Hospital Badayun, UP for treatment. Accordingly, an FIR bearing No. 412/2018, U/s: 279/338/427 PC P.S. Ujhani, Distt. Badayun, UP was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle/Pick-Up.
10. I may note that during cross-examination of PW1, his testimony on the aspect of high speed of respondent no.1 could not be shattered in any manner and therefore, the same has to be accepted on its face value itself. The contents of FIR/ Final report reveal that the respondent no. 1 was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently at a very high speed and hit the motorcycle of the injured. On perusal of the FIR, I find that registration number of the offending vehicle finds its clear mention in the FIR. The mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle clearly reflects the accidental damages on the front side of the offending vehicle.
MACT No. 187/19 Rajesh Sharma vs. Mohar Pal & Ors. Page No. 7 of 27 Site plan of the place of accident also supports the manner of accident as per version of the petitioner.
11. Moreover, it is not disputed that respondent no. 1 was charge-sheeted under Sections 279/338 IPC in the aforesaid criminal case and that fact further supports the testimony of petitioner (PW1) regarding rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1.
12. Thus, the facts that FIR has been registered and criminal proceedings have been initiated against the respondent no.1 by the police, are sufficient proof to conclude that respondent no.1 was negligent. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case titled as Shabina v. Satvir & Ors. MAC. APP. 980/17 dated 24.01.2020, wherein Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed that in so far as FIR has been registered, criminal case has been initiated against driver of offending vehicle and vehicle was seized, the requirement of proving the preponderance of probability of accident having been caused by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle has been established. In the aforesaid case, Hon'ble Delhi High Court referred to the judgment titled as National Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Smt. Pushpa Rana & Ors. (2008) 101 DRJ 645, wherein it was observed:
"12. The last contention of the appellant insurance company is that the respondents claimants should have proved negligence on the part of the driver and in this regard the counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. MACT No. 187/19 Rajesh Sharma vs. Mohar Pal & Ors. Page No. 8 of 27 Meena Variyal: 2007 (5) SCALE 269. On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the wife of the deceased had produced (i) certified copy of the criminal record of criminal case in FIR No. 955/2004, pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle, (ii) Criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of charge sheet under Section 279/304-A IPC against the driver, (iii) certified copy of FIR, wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and
(iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of the deceased. These documents are sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent.
Proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Hence, this contention of the counsel of the appellant also falls face down. There is ample evidence on record to prove negligence on the part of driver."
13. Furthermore, there is no challenge from the respondent no.1/ driver of the offending vehicle to the version of the petitioner. The respondent no.1 was the best witness, who could have stepped into the witness box to challenge the testimony of the petitioner (PW1) regarding the above accident and its manner but he preferred not to enter into the witness box during the course of inquiry. Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him to the effect that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by him in view of the law laid down in case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Kamlesh, 2009(3) AD (Delhi) 310.
MACT No. 187/19 Rajesh Sharma vs. Mohar Pal & Ors. Page No. 9 of 27
14. On perusal of MLC of petitioner, it is evident that petitioner had suffered grievous injuries in RTA (road traffic accident).
15. Besides above, it is settled proposition of law that in an action founded on the principle of fault liability, the proof of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is sine qua non. However, the standard of proof is not as strict as applied in criminal cases and evidence is to be tested on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the Claim Petition based upon negligence. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal. Reference may be made to the judgments titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sakshi Bhutani & Others., MAC APP. No. 550/2011 decided on 02.07.2012, Bimla Devi & Others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Others (2009) 13 SC 530, Parmeshwari v. Amirchand & Others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 & Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Others 2018, Law Suit (SC) 303.
16. Thus, in view of above, this Tribunal finds that there is sufficient material on record to establish that the accident had occurred due to rash driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1 and that has resulted into grievous injuries to the petitioner. Issue no. 1 is, accordingly, decided in favour of petitioner.
ISSUE NO. 2 :
Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
MACT No. 187/19 Rajesh Sharma vs. Mohar Pal & Ors. Page No. 10 of 27
17. In view of the finding on Issue no. 1, petitioner is entitled to get compensation, however, the quantum of compensation still needs to be adjudicated. Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 enjoins upon the claim Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation, which appears to be just and reasonable. As per settled law, compensation is not expected to be windfall or a bonanza nor it should be pittance. A man is not compensated for the physical injury, he is compensated for the loss which he suffers as a result of that injury (Baker v. Willoughby (1970) Ac 467 at page 492 per Lord Reid).
18. The present claim petition pertains to injury and scope of compensation in injury cases has been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Mr. R.D. Hattangadi v. M/S Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1995 AIR 755. The relevant extract is as under:
"Broadly speaking 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 is 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 upto the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non- pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain suffering, already MACT No. 187/19 Rajesh Sharma vs. Mohar Pal & Ors. Page No. 11 of 27 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, discomfort, disappointment, hardship, frustration and mental stress in life."
19. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & another (2011) 1 SCC 343, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India laid down general principles for computation of compensation in injury cases. The relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced as under:
4. The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act", for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or the Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability MACT No. 187/19 Rajesh Sharma vs. Mohar Pal & Ors. Page No. 12 of 27 to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned.
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 to pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage)
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii), (a) and
(iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii), (b), MACT No. 187/19 Rajesh Sharma vs. Mohar Pal & Ors. Page No. 13 of 27
(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.
20. In the light of the aforementioned judgments, the compensation to which the petitioner in injury cases are entitled shall be as under:
PECUNIARY DAMAGES :
Medical Expenses :
21. Petitioner (PW1) claims to have spent a sum of Rs. 86,274/- on his medical treatment and has not placed on record bills. Therefore, reasonable amount of Rs. 85,675/- is granted to the petitioner under this head.
Loss of income during treatment
22. Considering the nature of injuries and duration of the treatment of the injured / petitioner, this tribunal is of the opinion that injured petitioner must have not been able to work for about 03 months. Accordingly, this Tribunal hereby grant compensation for 03 months i.e. 16,858 x 3 = Rs. 50,574/- under this head.
Loss of future earning due to disability:
23. In case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) 1 SCC 343, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India determined the broad criteria for MACT No. 187/19 Rajesh Sharma vs. Mohar Pal & Ors. Page No. 14 of 27 assessment of permanent disability for ascertaining the purpose of future loss of earning and also laid down step by step procedure for assessment of disability and for ascertainment to the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity. Relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced as under:
"9. 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.
MACT No. 187/19 Rajesh Sharma vs. Mohar Pal & Ors. Page No. 15 of 27
10. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The tribunal has to first ascertain what activities of the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of 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 so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood."
......If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of 'loss of future earnings', if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of loosing MACT No. 187/19 Rajesh Sharma vs. Mohar Pal & Ors. Page No. 16 of 27 his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service but may not found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore, be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case, there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity taking note of the reduced earning capacity.
13. We may now summarize the principles discussed above:
(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 percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as 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 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.
MACT No. 187/19 Rajesh Sharma vs. Mohar Pal & Ors. Page No. 17 of 27
(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."
24. In the instant case, it is evident on record that as a consequence of injuries sustained in the accident, petitioner suffered 27% permanent physical disability in relation to left lower limb. The disability certificate, bearing no. 88/DBN/2020/7857 dt. 19.12.2020, issued by Medical Board of JPC Hospital, Delhi, has been duly proved on record by PW2 Dr. Binod Kalita, clearly reflecting the aforesaid extent of disability. The disablement and loss of earning capacity are two different aspects and not substitute to each other and the loss of income has to be seen considering the profession in which petitioner was engaged at the time of accident. Petitioner (PW1) has testified that he was working as a tailor in Delhi and he was getting Rs. 20,000/- p.m. but he has not filed any document to prove his income. He is 5th pass. Therefore, his income is being assessed as Rs. 16,858/- p.m.. as minimum wages of skilled person is Rs. 16,858/- w.e.f. 01.04.2018 to 01.10.2018 in Delhi.
25. Now it is required to be seen that upto what extent the permanent physical disability suffered by the petitioner would affect his earnings, so that a just and reasonable compensation may be granted to him under this head. In the opinion of this Tribunal, with 27% permanent physical disability in relation to left lower limb, a person who was working as tailoring work would definitely become incompetent to perform his work.
MACT No. 187/19 Rajesh Sharma vs. Mohar Pal & Ors. Page No. 18 of 27 There remains no doubt that with such level disability of 27% permanent physical disability in relation to left lower limb, petitioner would not be in a position to perform even his daily chores independently. He would not be able to run or do any physical activity without assistance and would not be able to continue his work. Moreover, nothing contrary has come on record to challenge the disability of petitioner. In the circumstances of the case, this Tribunal is of the opinion that functional disability in relation to whole body of the petitioner shall be considered to be 10% for the purpose of assessing corresponding loss of his future income.
26. Further, law is well settled that there should be no departure from the multiplier method in injury cases also [refer: Sandeep Khanuja vs. Atul Dande & Anr., (2017) 3 SCC 351]. As per Aadhar Card, year of birth of petitioner mentioned as 1974. Therefore, it becomes clear that on the date of accident (09.07.2018), petitioner was 44 years of age and thus, multiplier of 14 as applicable to age group between 41-45 years, would be applicable as per settled principle laid down in case of Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC
121. Moreover, the law has been well settled by the decisions of Supreme Court in the cases of Sandeep Khanuja (supra) and Erudhaya Priya vs. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 601, that while applying the multiplier method, future prospects on advancement in life and career are also to be taken into consideration. Thus, considering the petitioner as a skilled person, an addition of income to the extent of 25% towards future prospects has to be counted.
27. As discussed above, the income of petitioner has been assessed to MACT No. 187/19 Rajesh Sharma vs. Mohar Pal & Ors. Page No. 19 of 27 be Rs. 16,858/- per month. Thus, applying the multiplier 14 and future prospects @ 25% with 10% loss of income on account of whole body functional disability, the total loss of future income would come to Rs. 3,54,018/- [10% of (16858 x 25/100 + 16858 ) x 14 x 12)] = [10% of (4214.5 + 16858) x 14 x 12] = (10% of 21072.50) x 14 x 12= Rs. 3,54,018/- and same is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
Special Diet & Conveyance:
28. The petitioner (PW1) claimed to have spent money on special diet and on conveyance charges but he has not placed on record any supporting document in this regard. However, the perusal of treatment papers of petitioner makes it clear that petitioner treated at Siddhi Vinayak Hospital, Bareilly, UP; District Male Hospital, Budaun, UP; R.B.S. Surgicals, Bareilly, UP; and GTB Hospital, Delhi. Thus, keeping in view the nature of injuries as well as nature and period of treatment, an inference can be drawn that petitioner had to spend some reasonable amount on his special diet for the purpose of early recovery, post surgery.
29. Further, the medical record filed on behalf of the petitioner makes it clear that treatment of petitioner was continued even after his discharge from the hospital and he had to keep visiting the hospitals for his further treatment. Thus, it may be safely assumed that petitioner must have incurred a substantial amount on transportation for the purpose of making such numerous visits to the hospital. Also, he had to appear before the Medical Board for disability assessment. In view of this, I deem it appropriate to MACT No. 187/19 Rajesh Sharma vs. Mohar Pal & Ors. Page No. 20 of 27 grant a reasonable amount towards conveyance charges.
30. Therefore, his claim for special diet and transportation charges remains unchallenged. Thus, considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for special diet and Rs. 5,000/- for conveyance charges. Accordingly, a total sum of Rs. 10,000/- is granted to the petitioner under this head.
Attendant Charges:
31. The treatment record reflects that petitioner remained under treatment even after he was discharged from the hospital as he suffered permanent physical disability of 27% in relation to his left lower limb, which has been assessed by this Tribunal as 10% functional disability of his whole body keeping in view the work/ job he was doing prior to the accident. Thus, considering the nature of injury and long duration of treatment, it cannot be ignored that family members of the petitioner would have rendered their services for providing assistance to the petitioner in his routine activities due to which their work/job must have been suffered. For claiming compensation, necessity of employing a professional attendant/ care taker is required and the petitioner should be compensated for the value of services of the family members and attendant, which has been or would be necessitated by the wrong doing of the driver. (Refer : Pritam Singh Vs. Oriental Insurance Co & Ors. MAC. App No. 952/2011, Delhi High Court & Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand & Ors. ACJ 1042 Supreme Court of India, 2020). In the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs. MACT No. 187/19 Rajesh Sharma vs. Mohar Pal & Ors. Page No. 21 of 27 5,000/- towards attendant charges.
NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
Pain & Sufferings, Disfigurement & Loss of Amenities:
32. While discussing the criteria to ascertain the compensation for pain and sufferings by victim of vehicular accident, observations of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Satya Narain v. Jai Kishan, FAO No: 709/02, date of decision: 02.02.2007 can be considered:
"12. On account of pain and suffering, suffice would it be 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 objectives co-relation with the pain and suffering.
13. The objective facts relatable to pain and suffering would be:
(a) Nature of injury.
(b) Body part affected
(c) Duration of the treatment."
33. It is further to be noted that during hospitalization the petitioner had to undergo surgeries for treatment of his fractures and wounds of injury. Even after discharge from the hospital, he had to make numerous visits in OPD of the hospital for his treatment. Thus, it is clear that petitioner must have suffered pain and suffering during his treatment.
34. It is relevant to mention here the decision in case of Mohd. Sabeer v. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Civil Appeal MACT No. 187/19 Rajesh Sharma vs. Mohar Pal & Ors. Page No. 22 of 27 Nos. 9070-9071 of 2022, decided on 09.12.2022, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court awarded the compensation to the appellant/ injured on the following heads, as under:
Pain and suffering - Rs. 2,00,000/-.
Loss of amenities of life - Rs. 2,00,000/-. Disability - Rs. 2,00,000/-.
In that case, the appellant/ injured had sustained permanent physical disability of 95% in respect of all four limbs and his functional disability was assessed by the Tribunal as 30% and subsequently, the Hon'ble High Court assessed it to be 35%, whereas the Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the appellant a self-employed, assessed his functional disability as 60%.
35. In the case in hand, the injured who was working as a tailor in Delhi, sustained 27% permanent physical disability in relation to his left lower limb, which has been assessed above by this Tribunal as 10% functional disability of his whole body and therefore, the aforementioned judgment in case of Mohd. Sabeer (Supra) squarely applies to this case. Accordingly, petitioner is granted a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- on account of pain and suffering and Rs. 5,000/- on account of loss of amenities.
36. Deduction:
Perusal of record reveals that the petitioner and his friend were not wearing helmets at the time of accident and they were not following the traffic rules. In my opinion, 25% of the total compensation shall be deducted towards contributory negligence.
MACT No. 187/19 Rajesh Sharma vs. Mohar Pal & Ors. Page No. 23 of 27
37. Thus, the compensation awarded to the petitioner is summarized as under:
Sl. No. Head of compensation Amount
1. Medical Expenses Rs. 85,675/-
Loss of Future Earnings Rs. 3,54,018/-
2.
(on account of disability)
Loss of Income during treatment Rs. 50,574/-
3.
for 03 months
4. Special Diet & Conveyance Rs. 10,000/-
5. Attendant Charges Rs. 5,000/-
6. Pain & Sufferings Rs. 5,000/-
7. Loss of amenities Rs. 5,000/-
Total Rs. 5,15,267/-
(round off to Rs.
5,15,300/-)
Less Deduction @ 25% towards Rs. 1,28,825/-
contributory negligence
Total Rs. 3,86,475/-
Accordingly, petitioner Rajesh Sharma is awarded a total
compensation of Rs. 3,86,475/-.
Liability and Mode of payment :
38. Now, the question arises as to which of the respondent is liable to pay the compensation amount. The offending vehicle was duly insured at the time of accident and the insurance company has contractual and statutory liability to indemnify the insured. In the instant case, the insurance company MACT No. 187/19 Rajesh Sharma vs. Mohar Pal & Ors. Page No. 24 of 27 has not been able to prove that any term or condition of insurance policy was breached / violated by the insured. Consequently, respondent no. 3 / Insurance Company Ltd. is liable to pay the aforesaid compensation amount to the petitioner without any recovery rights.
ISSUE NO.3 / RELIEF
39. In view of the the findings on the aforesaid issues, the petitioner is hereby awarded a sum of Rs. 3,86,475/- (Rupees Three Lakh Eight Six Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Five only) along with interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of petition till its deposition by the insurer i.e. respondent no. 3. However, it is directed that the amount of interim award, if any, shall be excluded from the above amount and calculations of compensation.
RELEASE/APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION TO THE PETITIONER
40. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby directed that out of the amount awarded i.e. Rs. 3,86,475/- in favour of petitioner, a sum of Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand Only) is ordered to be released into his savings bank account and remaining amount of Rs. 3,11,475/- (Rupees Three Lakh Eleven Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Five Only) along with interest on entire amount awarded to them is directed to be kept in his name with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in the form of 20 monthly FDRs (fixed deposit receipts), payable in equal MACT No. 187/19 Rajesh Sharma vs. Mohar Pal & Ors. Page No. 25 of 27 amounts for a period of 1 to 20 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dt. 07.12.2018 in FAO No. 84/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Others vs. Jaibir Singh & Others.
41. All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following conditions:
(a) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody and copies of the same be provided to the petitioner with the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount.
(b) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant.
(c) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(d) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant / his guardian. However, in case the debit card and /or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount.
(e) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court.
42. Respondent no. 3, being the insurer of the offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the award amount with interest till date with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch, Delhi bearing account no. 20780110171929; IFSC: UCBA0002078 within 30 days as per above order, failing which respondent no. 3 shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a for the period of delay. Concerned Manager, UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch is MACT No. 187/19 Rajesh Sharma vs. Mohar Pal & Ors. Page No. 26 of 27 directed to transfer the share amount of the petitioners in their bank account, on completing necessary formalities as per rules. The Branch Manager, is further directed to keep the said amounts in fixed deposits in name of this Court in auto renewal mode every 15 days, till the claimants approach the bank for disbursement, so that the award amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheques. Form IV-B and Form-V, in terms of MCTAP, shall be read as part of the Award. Copy of the award be given dasti to the petitioner and also to counsel for the Respondent no.3 for compliance. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph each, specimen signatures, copy of bank passbooks and copy of residence proof of the petitioners, be sent to Nodal Officer of UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance.
43. With these directions, the Claim petition is disposed of. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed MANISH by MANISH SHARMA Announced in open Court SHARMA Date: 2026.05.15 on this 15th Day of May, 2026 16:03:04 +0530 (MANISH SHARMA) PO(MACT), NORTH EAST KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI. MACT No. 187/19 Rajesh Sharma vs. Mohar Pal & Ors. Page No. 27 of 27