Delhi District Court
Anil Kumar vs Sunder Singh Yadav on 21 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. ADITI GARG
DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
PO MACT (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No.:311/2023
FIR no. 459/2022
PS Sun Light Colony
U/s 279/338 IPC
CNR No.: DLSE01 -001205-2023
Anil Kumar Vs. Sunder Singh Yadav & Ors.
1. Anil Kumar
S/o Sh. Ram Singh
(Petitioner being unsound mind represented through wife Smt.
Rekha)
.....Petitioner
Versus
1. Sunder Singh Yadav
S/o Sh. Nand Lal Yadav
R/o 96/2018, Colonel Ganj,
Kanpur City, Distt. Kanpur, UP.
.....R-1/ Driver
2. M/s Tirubala International Pvt ltd.
C-7, Panki Ind. Area, Site -I, Kanpur City.
Distt. Kanpur, UP.
Through Shiv Kumar Pal
.....R-2/ Owner
3. Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.
Plot no.D 160/2, Second Floor,
MACT No.: 311/2023 Anil Kumar Vs. Sunder Singh Yadav & Ors. Page No. 1 of 43
Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III,
Nehru Place, OPP. SBI, South Delhi.
....R-3/ Insurance Co.
Date of accident : 03.09.2022
Date of filing of DAR : 06.12.2022
Date of filing of petition : 25.01.2023
Date of Decision : 21.04.2026
AWARD
1. DAR
(a) In this case, a Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter
referred as DAR) was filed by IO in terms of provisions of Motor
Vehicle Act, which is treated as Claim Petition under Section 166
(1) read with Section 166 (4) MV Act. It pertains to alleged
accident of injured Anil Kumar (hereinafter referred as claimant)
by vehicle bearing Reg. No. UP 78 GK 1800 (MERCEDES)
(hereinafter referred as offending vehicle), which was driven by
Sh. Sunder Singh Yadav (hereinafter referred as R-1), owned by
M/s Tirubala International Pvt Ltd, (hereinafter referred as R-2)
and insured with M/s Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. (hereinafter
referred as R-3).
(b) Subsequently a Claim Petition was also filed 25.01.2023
and DAR was merged along with claim petition.
2. Brief Facts as per Claim Petition:
(a) On 03.09.2022, the injured/claimant along with his wife was
going from his house to AIIMS Hospital on motorcycle bearing
no. DL-7SBU-6155 via DND Flyover, Noida. At about 08:00
PM, when they reached the Ashram side after crossing the
MACT No.: 311/2023 Anil Kumar Vs. Sunder Singh Yadav & Ors. Page No. 2 of 43
Yamuna River bridge, an offending vehicle came from behind in
speedy and rash manner and hit their motorcycle with great force.
As a result, both the claimant and his wife fell on the road and
sustained injuries. The driver of the offending vehicle fled from
the spot along with the vehicle after causing the accident. It is
stated that some broken parts of the offending vehicle, such as a
rear-view mirror (having a barcode and logo) and the left-side
headlight, were found at the spot. Public persons gathered at the
spot and informed the police and ambulance. Both injured
persons were taken to AIIMS Trauma Centre, where their MLCs
were prepared. An FIR was registered at PS Sun Light Colony on
the same day.
3. Brief Facts of DAR:
(a) On 03.09.2022, information regarding the accident was
received by the police and recorded as GD No. 36A. On receipt
of the said information, the police reached the spot and found the
accidental motorcycle, but no eye-witness was present there.
Since the injured had already been taken to the hospital, another
GD entry No. 44A was received from AIIMS Trauma Centre.
The Investigating Officer (IO) then went to the hospital and
collected the MLCs of the injured persons, namely Anil and
Rekha. On the basis of GD entries No. 36A and 44A and the
MLC opinion, an FIR was registered under relevant penal
provisions.
(b) During investigation, the IO seized the accidental
motorcycle. After obtaining the ownership details of the
offending vehicle, a notice under Section 133 of the Motor
Vehicles Act was served upon its owner, Shiv Kumar Pal, who
MACT No.: 311/2023 Anil Kumar Vs. Sunder Singh Yadav & Ors. Page No. 3 of 43
confirmed that the vehicle was being driven by Sunder Singh at
the time of the accident. The owner produced the driver before
the police, who was formally arrested and later released on bail.
The documents of the offending vehicle were seized and verified,
and they were found to be in order.
(c) During the course of investigation, an eye-witness, namely
Akash Kumar, approached the police station and narrated the
manner of the accident. He identified the driver present at the
police station and confirmed that he was the same person who
had caused the accident by driving in a rash and negligent
manner and had fled from the spot.
(d) IO also got the offending vehicle mechanically inspected.
The statement of the injured Anil was recorded, wherein he
stated that while going with his wife to purchase medicines on
the said motorcycle, they were hit forcefully by the offending
vehicle, resulting in serious injuries. The statement of his wife
was also recorded, and she stated similar facts.
(e) Statements of two PCR callers, namely Manoj Bhatia and
Sanjiv Kumar, were also recorded. They stated that while passing
through the spot, they saw the injured persons lying on the road
and made PCR calls. The opinion on the MLCs was obtained,
wherein the injuries were opined to be grievous. After
completion of investigation, the IO filed the charge-sheet under
relevant penal provisions, and thereafter, the DAR was filed
before this Tribunal.
4. Reply:
(a) No written statement/reply has been filed on behalf of the
MACT No.: 311/2023 Anil Kumar Vs. Sunder Singh Yadav & Ors. Page No. 4 of 43
driver or owner of the offending vehicle.
(b) The insurance company, relying upon the factum of the
accident and negligence of the driver, submitted a legal offer at
an early stage of the proceedings and did not raise any dispute
regarding material inconsistencies. However, the claimant did not
find the said offer satisfactory and declined to accept the same.
5. Issues:
(a) Since negligence was not disputed, only the issue with
respect to quantum of compensation was framed as follows:
i). Whether the injured is entitled to any compensation, if
so, to what extent and from whom?OPP
ii). Relief.
6. Disability :
(a) A Certificate noticing 79% permanent physical impairment
in relation to his locomotor intellectual + right lower limb as per
RPwD ACT 2016, issued by Government of India received.
disability in relation to spine received from Pt. Madan Mohan
Malviya Hospital
7. Evidence:
(a) The matter was listed for petitioner's evidence. PW-1,
Smt. Rekha (wife of the injured Anil), tendered her evidence by
way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A. She relied upon documents relating
to the medical treatment of the injured, proof of
income/avocation, and identity proof of the injured, exhibited as
Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/9. She also relied upon additional
MACT No.: 311/2023 Anil Kumar Vs. Sunder Singh Yadav & Ors. Page No. 5 of 43
medical documents/bills exhibited as Ex. PW1/X and Ex.
PW1/Y. She was duly cross-examined by the learned counsel for
the insurance company.
(b) PW-3, Sh. Sanad Kumar Agnihotri, Senior Manager,
Sterling Ornaments Pvt. Ltd., was examined on behalf of the
claimant to prove the income/avocation of the injured. He
produced relevant documents exhibited as Ex. PW3/1 to Ex.
PW3/8, along with Mark X and Mark Y.
(c) PW-4, Ms. Kalpana, was examined on behalf of the
claimant. She deposed that she had rendered services as an
attendant to the injured and his family members and was paid for
the same.
(d) PW-5, Sh. Rajan Singh, was also examined, who claimed
that he had worked as a paid attendant for the injured. He
deposed that he took care of the injured Anil and provided
physiotherapy, oil massage, etc. He was cross-examined on
behalf of the insurance company.
(e) PW-6, Dr. Shashwat Mishra, Professor, Department of
Neurosurgery, JPN Apex Trauma Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi,
was examined to prove the disability of the injured and to explain
the nature of injuries sustained. He was also cross-examined on
behalf of the respondents.
(f) Thereafter, petitioner's evidence was closed. The matter was
then listed for respondent's evidence; however, no evidence was
led on behalf of any of the respondents. Accordingly,
respondent's evidence was closed, and the matter was listed for
final arguments.
MACT No.: 311/2023 Anil Kumar Vs. Sunder Singh Yadav & Ors. Page No. 6 of 43
8. Final Arguments:
(a) Arguments on behalf of the Claimant:
It is submitted on behalf of the claimant that the accident
in question occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle. The said fact was never disputed by the
respondents, and even a connected matter pertaining to the
injured Rekha has already been settled, which further supports
the case of the claimant. It is further submitted that, in view of
the undisputed negligence, only the issue with respect to the
quantum of compensation has been framed in the present case. It
is argued that the injured has suffered 79% permanent disability
in relation to locomotor and intellectual functions, including the
right lower limb. It is contended that such disability has severely
affected the overall functioning of the injured, including his
mobility, cognitive abilities, and day-to-day activities. Relying
upon the testimony of PW-6 (doctor), it is prayed that the said
disability be treated as 100% functional disability, considering
the nature of injuries and their impact on the earning capacity and
quality of life of the injured. It is further submitted that the
injured has already undergone five surgeries and has suffered
immense physical pain, mental trauma, and financial loss. It is
argued that the life of the injured has been completely altered,
and he is largely unresponsive and dependent on others for his
daily needs. The claimant has also proved the expenditure
incurred towards attendant charges by examining PW-4 and
PW-5, who deposed regarding the services rendered to the
injured. The income and avocation of the injured have been duly
proved by examining the concerned witness and placing relevant
MACT No.: 311/2023 Anil Kumar Vs. Sunder Singh Yadav & Ors. Page No. 7 of 43
documents on record.
It is further submitted that written submissions along with
relevant case laws have been filed to support the claim,
particularly with respect to treating severe neuro-disability cases
as 100% functional disability. Accordingly, it is prayed that just
and reasonable compensation be awarded to the claimant in view
of the gravity of injuries, extent of disability, and its lifelong
impact.
(b) Arguments on behalf of the Insurance Company:
On the other hand, the insurance company has admitted
that the offending vehicle was duly insured at the time of the
accident and has not raised any statutory defence. It is submitted
that the matter may be decided on the basis of merits and
evidence available on record.
9. Discussion:
(a) In the present case, no issue with respect to rash and
negligent driving was framed, as the factum of accident and
negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle was
not disputed by any of the respondents. The record reflects that
the insurance company had itself filed a legal offer at an early
stage of the proceedings. The filing of such legal offer, without
raising any objection as to the manner of the accident or
negligence of the driver, clearly indicates that the respondents
did not dispute the occurrence of the accident or the involvement
and negligence of the offending vehicle. One of the connected
matter of injured Rekha has already been settled with insurance
company.
MACT No.: 311/2023 Anil Kumar Vs. Sunder Singh Yadav & Ors. Page No. 8 of 43
(b) Further, no written statement was filed by the driver or
owner of the offending vehicle, and no evidence was led on
behalf of any of the respondents to controvert the case of the
claimant. The charge-sheet filed by the Investigating Officer
against the driver of the offending vehicle has also remained
unchallenged on record. The material placed on record, including
the DAR, FIR, MLCs, and other documents, sufficiently
establishes the occurrence of the accident. The investigation
conducted by the Investigating Officer appears to be proper and
there is nothing on record to disbelieve the same or to suggest
any false implication.
(c) In view of the above, and in the absence of any contest on
behalf of the respondents, there is no requirement to delve into a
detailed discussion on rashness and negligence. The same stands
duly established on the basis of unrebutted evidence on record.
Accordingly, it is held that the accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. Since
negligence is not in dispute, the only issue which survives for
consideration is with respect to the quantum of compensation
payable to the claimant.
ISSUE NO. 2
"Whether the injured is entitled to any
compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?
OPP"
10. 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:
MACT No.: 311/2023 Anil Kumar Vs. Sunder Singh Yadav & Ors. Page No. 9 of 43
"(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.
.
.
.
11. "....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 signs 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.
MACT No.: 311/2023 Anil Kumar Vs. Sunder Singh Yadav & Ors. Page No. 10 of 43
12. 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.
13. 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 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 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."
MACT No.: 311/2023 Anil Kumar Vs. Sunder Singh Yadav & Ors. Page No. 11 of 43
14. 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 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"
15. 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 (1880) 5 APP CAS 25 were referred as under:
MACT No.: 311/2023 Anil Kumar Vs. Sunder Singh Yadav & Ors. Page No. 12 of 43 ".......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...."
16. 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."
17. 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).
18. 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 MACT No.: 311/2023 Anil Kumar Vs. Sunder Singh Yadav & Ors. Page No. 13 of 43 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).
19. What is required of the Tribunal is to attempt 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 Raj Kumar (supra) as referred and relied in Sidram (supra)}.
20. Observing that a measure of damages cannot be arrived with precise mathematical calculations and that much depends upon 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.
21. 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-
MACT No.: 311/2023 Anil Kumar Vs. Sunder Singh Yadav & Ors. Page No. 14 of 43 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."
22. 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;
(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."
23. 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:
MACT No.: 311/2023 Anil Kumar Vs. Sunder Singh Yadav & Ors. Page No. 15 of 43 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 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.
MACT No.: 311/2023 Anil Kumar Vs. Sunder Singh Yadav & Ors. Page No. 16 of 43
24. PECUNIARY DAMAGES Damages under pecuniary heads primarily involves reimbursement of actual amount spent on account of injury suffered in an accident to undo the monetary loss, suffered by the claimant, as ascertainable from the evidence on record. Given hereunder are various heads under which compensation for pecuniary damages is assessed:
A. Expenditure of Medical Bills- The claimant has placed on record original medical bills for a total sum of Rs. 1,24,499/-, which are duly proved and accordingly awarded. Further, in view of the testimony of PW-6 that the shunts may malfunction or become infected, requiring revision surgeries in future, and that the injured would require regular medical follow-up and physical therapy for the rest of his life, though no precise estimate of future expenses has been brought on record, a reasonable sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- is additionally awarded towards future medical treatment. Accordingly, the total amount awarded under the head of medical expenses comes to Rs. 2,24,499/-.
(B) Expenditure on Conveyance- The injured remained under prolonged treatment involving multiple hospitalizations, surgeries and continuous follow-up, as reflected from the medical record, and was required to visit the hospital frequently for consultations, investigations and physiotherapy even after discharge. Considering the nature of injuries, particularly traumatic brain injury with right-sided weakness, it is evident that he was not in a position to travel independently and would have required assistance and private conveyance for his MACT No.: 311/2023 Anil Kumar Vs. Sunder Singh Yadav & Ors. Page No. 17 of 43 movement, as use of public transport would not have been feasible in such condition. Though no specific bills have been placed on record, it is a matter of common experience that substantial expenditure would have been incurred on conveyance over such a long period of treatment. Accordingly, taking a reasonable and pragmatic view, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards conveyance charges.
(C) Expenditure on Special Diet- The medical records of the injured clearly reflects that during the course of treatment, a special diet including protein-rich food and nutritional supplements was advised to aid recovery, particularly in view of the traumatic brain injury, multiple surgeries and prolonged healing process. It is a matter of common understanding that such diet is essential for recovery in cases involving neurological injury and fractures and entails additional expenditure over normal food. Although no bills have been filed on record, the requirement of special diet stands duly supported from the medical documents and the nature of injuries. Accordingly, taking a reasonable view, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards special diet.
(D) Attendant Charges during recovery period: The claimant has examined PW-4 Kalpana and PW-5 Sh. Rajan Singh, both of whom have deposed that they were engaged to take care of the injured and his family members after the accident. PW-5 specifically stated that he was attending to the injured Anil by assisting in feeding, cleaning, suction and other daily needs as the injured was not in a condition to manage these activities himself, and that he used to work for about 7-8 hours daily till MACT No.: 311/2023 Anil Kumar Vs. Sunder Singh Yadav & Ors. Page No. 18 of 43 April 2024. PW-4 stated that she was managing household work including cooking, cleaning and washing as the wife of the injured, who was also injured in the same accident, was not in a position to do the same. Though both witnesses stated that they were being paid Rs.20,000/- each, no documentary proof of such payment has been placed on record and they have also admitted that no salary was received through bank. At the same time, considering the nature of injuries of the injured, particularly traumatic brain injury with dependency for daily activities, the requirement of an attendant cannot be denied. It is a settled position that even in absence of documentary proof, attendant charges are to be awarded on a reasonable basis. However, since the case of injured Rekha already stands settled, the attendant charges relatable to her are deemed to have been accounted for separately and cannot be duplicated in the present case.
Accordingly, taking a reasonable view and considering minimum wages of a skilled worker at the relevant time, attendant charges are assessed for a period of one year at Rs.20,000/- per month, and a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- is awarded towards attendant charges.
E. Future Attendant Charges: The testimony of PW-6 Dr. Shashwat Mishra clearly establishes that due to the effects of traumatic brain injury, the injured has suffered impairment in his mental faculties and requires assistance for his daily routine activities. The doctor has further clarified that the injured may need such assistance for the rest of his life and chances of significant improvement are minimal. Thus, the requirement of future attendant stands duly proved on record. At the same time, it has also come in the cross-examination that the injured is able MACT No.: 311/2023 Anil Kumar Vs. Sunder Singh Yadav & Ors. Page No. 19 of 43 to sit and sleep on his own, which indicates that he is not completely bedridden and may not require round-the-clock professional assistance at all times. It is a matter of common experience that in such cases, part of the assistance is often provided by family members and the requirement of a full-time paid attendant may not exist throughout the day. In this context, guidance can be taken from settled legal position in cases such as Sidram (supra) and Kajal vs Jagdish Chand, Civil Appeal No. 735 of 2020 wherein it has been recognized that future attendant charges are to be awarded applying a reasonable monthly estimate and the multiplier method. Keeping in view the nature of disability, long-term requirement of assistance, passage of time and rise in cost of living, and balancing the fact that some support would be provided by family members and continuous full-time assistance may not be required, the monthly attendant charges are reasonably assessed at Rs.8,000/- per month.
As per the Aadhaar Card, the age of the injured was about 54 years; hence, the applicable multiplier is 11. The future attendant charges are assessed at Rs. 8,000/- per month. Applying the multiplier method, the same are calculated as Rs. 8,000 × 12 × 11 = Rs. 10,56,000/-. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 10,56,000/- is awarded under this head.
(F) Loss of earning during the period of treatment: It is the testimony of the wife of the injured that the injured was working in a private job with Sterling Ornaments Pvt. Ltd., NSEZ, Noida (U.P.) as a Purchase Officer and was earning a salary of Rs.29,845/- per month. She further deposed that the injured remained hospitalized on three occasions and continued under MACT No.: 311/2023 Anil Kumar Vs. Sunder Singh Yadav & Ors. Page No. 20 of 43 medical treatment and supervision for a considerable period of more than one year. The claimant has accordingly computed loss of income for a period of 12 months.
(i) In order to prove the income, the claimant examined Sh. Sanad Kumar Agnihotri, Manager (HR) of Sterling Ornaments Pvt. Ltd. as PW-3. The said witness appeared along with original records and proved the employment and salary details of the injured by placing on record Employee Information (Ex. PW3/3), Employee Service Record (Ex. PW3/4), Attendance Sheet (Ex. PW3/5), Salary Register (Ex. PW3/6), Pay Slips for six months (Ex. PW3/7 colly), Full and Final Settlement (Ex. PW3/8) and other supporting documents. From the testimony of PW-3 and the documents proved on record, it stands established that the injured was a long-standing employee of the company, having joined in the year 1991, and was working on the post of Purchase Officer at the time of accident. The record further shows that he was a permanent employee and his last drawn salary was Rs.29,845/- per month. It has also come on record that after the accident, his position was filled by another employee.
(ii) The testimony of PW-3 has remained consistent and reliable. Despite cross-examination, nothing material has come on record to discredit the documents or the employment status and income of the injured. The insurance company has neither led any evidence to the contrary nor disputed the authenticity of the salary record.
(iii) A perusal of Salary Register (Ex. PW3/6) shows that the injured was regularly drawing a gross salary of Rs.29,845/- per month prior to the accident. The salary comprises various MACT No.: 311/2023 Anil Kumar Vs. Sunder Singh Yadav & Ors. Page No. 21 of 43 components such as basic pay, HRA, transport allowance and other allowances. These components are integral parts of the salary structure and collectively form the total earnings of the employee. The income of a salaried person cannot be restricted to only one component when the entire salary package is being regularly paid.
(iv) The salary record reflects deduction only towards Provident Fund to the extent of Rs.1,800/- per month. It is a settled position that deduction towards Provident Fund is not to be excluded while computing income in motor accident cases, as such contribution is in the nature of savings for the benefit of the employee and does not reduce the actual earning capacity. Accordingly, no deduction on this account is warranted.
(v) Further, no deduction towards income tax is reflected in the salary documents. The insurance company has neither raised any plea nor put any suggestion in this regard during cross- examination. There is also no material on record to show that the injured was liable to pay income tax. In absence of any such evidence, no deduction towards income tax can be made.
(vi) In view of the unrebutted oral and documentary evidence on record, this Tribunal finds no reason to discard the salary proved by PW-3. Accordingly, the monthly income of the injured is assessed at Rs.29,845/- per month.
(vii) Secondly, perusal of the medical record, particularly the Discharge Summary Ex. PW1/2, reflects that the injured was first admitted in AIIMS Trauma Centre for the period from 03.09.2022 to 27.09.2022. The record shows that the injured had suffered serious head injury (traumatic brain injury) along with MACT No.: 311/2023 Anil Kumar Vs. Sunder Singh Yadav & Ors. Page No. 22 of 43 fracture of right ankle (medial malleolus with fibular fracture). He underwent surgical procedures including fixation of the ankle fracture with screws and a major brain surgery (decompressive craniectomy with duroplasty). These procedures are serious in nature and are generally required in cases where there is swelling or damage in the brain and fracture requiring surgical fixation.
(viii) The condition of the injured at the time of discharge itself shows the gravity of injuries, as he was not fully conscious and had weakness/paralysis on one side of the body (right hemiplegia). He was dependent for basic functions and required tube feeding and continuous care. The discharge advice itself mentions chances of complications and the requirement of long- term physiotherapy and proper nursing care at home.
(ix) The medical record further shows that the injured was again admitted from 26.10.2022 to 02.11.2022, where he remained under neurosurgical management and underwent further treatment including removal of stitches. Thereafter, he was again hospitalized from 03.12.2022 to 23.12.2022 for complications such as shunt malfunction and post-traumatic hydrocephalus, and he underwent further surgical procedures including cranioplasty. The record also shows that he had reduced alertness and activity, which required continued medical intervention.
(x) Even after discharge, the injured remained under continuous medical supervision for several months, which is evident from regular OPD visits and prescriptions placed on record. The treatment did not end in the year 2022 itself, as the record further shows that he continued to take neurological and MACT No.: 311/2023 Anil Kumar Vs. Sunder Singh Yadav & Ors. Page No. 23 of 43 psychiatric treatment during the years 2024 and 2025, indicating long-term impact of the injuries.
(xi) From the entire medical record, it clearly emerges that the injuries suffered by the injured were serious, life-threatening in nature and had long-term effects on his physical and mental condition. It is a matter of common understanding that a person who has undergone multiple surgeries, especially brain surgery, and who remains under prolonged treatment cannot attend his work or perform his duties for a considerable period. It has also come on record that the injured could not rejoin his job after the accident and his post was filled by another person.
(xii) In such circumstances, exact loss of income for each day cannot be calculated with mathematical precision. However, the Tribunal is required to take a reasonable and practical view based on the nature of injuries and duration of treatment. The claimant has assessed loss of income for a period of 12 months, which appears to be just, reasonable and fully supported by the medical record showing prolonged hospitalization and continuous treatment.
(xiii) Accordingly, the loss of income of the injured is assessed for a period of 12 months. The monthly income of the injured has already been assessed as Rs.29,845/-. Therefore, the loss of income for 12 months comes to Rs.29,845 × 12 = Rs.3,58,140/-
(G) Loss of future earning: It is settled that a person is required to be compensated not just for the physical injury but also for the loss he has suffered as well as the loss which he might entail for the rest of his life on account of those injuries which he sustained MACT No.: 311/2023 Anil Kumar Vs. Sunder Singh Yadav & Ors. Page No. 24 of 43 in the accident. This necessarily means that he is required to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy normal amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the injury, his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (Support drawn from the judgment titled as C. K. Subramania Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair (1969) 3 SCC 64.
(i) Disability Assessment Report was received and claimant/ injured was opined to have suffered with 79% permanent physical impairment in relation to his locomotor intellectual + right lower limb
(ii) 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 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."
MACT No.: 311/2023 Anil Kumar Vs. Sunder Singh Yadav & Ors. Page No. 25 of 43
(iii) 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 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 MACT No.: 311/2023 Anil Kumar Vs. Sunder Singh Yadav & Ors. Page No. 26 of 43 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.
(iv) 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.
(v) 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 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 MACT No.: 311/2023 Anil Kumar Vs. Sunder Singh Yadav & Ors. Page No. 27 of 43 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 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 MACT No.: 311/2023 Anil Kumar Vs. Sunder Singh Yadav & Ors. Page No. 28 of 43 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:
(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, MACT No.: 311/2023 Anil Kumar Vs. Sunder Singh Yadav & Ors. Page No. 29 of 43 depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors."
(v) Further in the case of "Mohan Soni v 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 capacity in the same degree as in the case of a marginal farmer or a cycle-rickshaw-puller.
(vi) 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 MACT No.: 311/2023 Anil Kumar Vs. Sunder Singh Yadav & Ors. Page No. 30 of 43 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.
(vii) At the outset, it is noted that the injured has been assessed with 79% permanent physical impairment in relation to locomotor, intellectual functions and right lower limb. However, for the purpose of compensation, what is required to be examined is the functional disability in relation to earning capacity. In this regard, the testimony of PW-6 Dr. Shashwat Mishra assumes significance. The doctor, who was one of the treating doctors, has clearly explained the nature of injuries and their long-term impact. He deposed that the injured had suffered a traumatic brain injury and underwent multiple surgeries including decompressive craniectomy, fracture fixation of right ankle, cranioplasty and multiple shunt surgeries due to post-traumatic hydrocephalus. He further clarified that such shunts may require revision in future and the injured would require lifelong medical follow-up and therapy. More importantly, PW-6 categorically stated that due to impairment in mental faculties caused by head injury, the injured is unable to perform his duties as expected in his employment prior to the accident. It has also come in his testimony that the injured requires assistance for his daily routine and may need such assistance for the rest of his life. He further clarified that chances of improvement are minimal and even upon reassessment, reduction in disability is unlikely. The nature of injuries, particularly the traumatic brain injury, has affected not only the physical capacity of the injured but also his cognitive functions. It is a matter of common understanding that a person MACT No.: 311/2023 Anil Kumar Vs. Sunder Singh Yadav & Ors. Page No. 31 of 43 engaged as a purchase officer in a jewellery company, like Sterling Ornaments Pvt. Ltd., is required to perform duties involving decision-making, coordination, communication, verification of goods and financial awareness. Such work requires proper mental alertness, judgment and independent functioning. In the present case, the injured is not only physically restricted (as he cannot walk without assistance), but more importantly, his mental faculties have been impaired, as clearly stated by the doctor. He is dependent on others even for basic activities. In such a situation, expecting him to perform duties of a purchase officer in any effective manner is not practical.
(viii) The judgment relied upon by the claimant in Parminder Singh vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. also supports the principle that where the nature of disability renders a person incapable of performing his previous occupation, the functional disability in relation to earning capacity can be taken as 100%, even if the physical disability is lesser. Applying the same principle to the present case, it is clear that though the permanent physical impairment is assessed at 79%, the impact of injuries on the earning capacity of the injured is much higher. The injured has not been able to rejoin his job and his post has already been filled. The medical evidence also shows that he is not in a position to perform any work independently. Accordingly, considering the nature of injuries, medical evidence, deposition of PW-6 and the nature of work of the injured, this Tribunal is of the view that the functional disability of the injured in relation to his earning capacity is to be taken as 100%.
(ix) Future Prospect: It is settled that future prospect (as laid MACT No.: 311/2023 Anil Kumar Vs. Sunder Singh Yadav & Ors. Page No. 32 of 43 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.
(Support drawn from Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar & Ors., AIR 2020 SC 4424).
(x) As per Aadhar Card, age of injured was about 54 years of age at the time of accident. Since the injured was between 50-60 years and was privately employed, in view of the law laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra), the addition towards future prospects is taken at 10%. Further, as per the age of the injured at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier applicable would be 11.
(xi) In view of the above discussion of law, the calculation under future loss of income in the present case is as under:
(a) Annual income =Rs.3,58,140/-
(b) Future prospects (10% of Rs.3,58,140/-) =Rs.83,775/-
___________________
(c) Total = Rs.3,93,954/-
(d) Thus, Multiplicand = Rs.3,93,954/-
(e) Hence, the 'Total Loss of Future Income' shall be :-
Percentage of Functional Disability (Multiplicand × Multiplier) 100% (Rs.3,93,954/- × 11) = Rs.43,33,494/-
25. NON-PECUNIARY LOSS
(a) Injured is entitled to both, pecuniary as well as non- pecuniary damages. As the name suggests pecuniary damages are designed to make good the pecuniary loss which can be ascertained in terms of money whereas non pecuniary damages MACT No.: 311/2023 Anil Kumar Vs. Sunder Singh Yadav & Ors. Page No. 33 of 43 are general damages to compensate the injured for mental and physical shock, pain, suffering, loss of expectation of life, inconvenience, hardship, frustration, stress, dejectment and unhappiness suffered by him on account of injuries sustained in the accident. It takes into account all the aspects of a normal life which deluded injured on account of accident. Given the nature of heads covered, it is bound to involve guess work on the part of Tribunal involving some hypothetical consideration as well, primarily considering the special circumstances of the injured and the effect of those upon his future life.
(b) Regarding non-pecuniary loss, following was stated in Halsbury's Laws of England, 4 th Edition, Vol. 12 (page 446) {also been referred to and relied upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sidram (supra)} "Non-pecuniary loss: the pattern: Damages awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenity constitute a conventional sum which is taken to be the sum which society deems fair, fairness being interpreted by the courts in the light of previous decisions. Thus there has been evolved a set of conventional principles providing a provisional guide to the comparative severity of different injuries, and indicating a bracket of damages into which a particular injury will currently fall. The particular circumstances of the plaintiff, including his age and any unusual deprivation he may suffer, is reflected in the actual amount of the award.
(c) In case of Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC 667, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the object of an award of damages is to give the plaintiff compensation for damage, loss or injury he has suffered. The Court further held that the elements of damage recognized by law are divisible into two main groups: pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss. While the pecuniary loss is capable of being arithmetically worked out, the non- pecuniary loss is not so calculable. Non-
MACT No.: 311/2023 Anil Kumar Vs. Sunder Singh Yadav & Ors. Page No. 34 of 43 pecuniary loss is compensated in terms of money, not as a substitute or replacement for other money, but as a substitute, what McGregor says, is generally more important than money: it is the best that a court can do.
(d) Further, in the case of Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 274, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that if a collection of cases on the quantum of damages is to be useful, it must necessarily be classified in such a way that comparable cases can be grouped together. No doubt, no two cases are alike but still, it is possible to make a broad classification which enables one to bring comparable awards together. Inflation should be taken into account while calculating damages. (The above two cases were also referred and relied in the case of A. Rupin Manohar Through Sh. S. Anandha vs Mohd. Ansari & Ors. MAC App. 602/2015 decided on 17 August, 2017 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court).
(e) To sum up, Compensation under non-pecuniary heads involves objective assessment of the damages in a bid to undo the loss, the injured would incur on account of his inability to a normal life and earn as much as he would, but for the injuries sustained. The whole idea behind assessment for damages for compensation is to put the claimant in the same position in so far as money can. The very nature of these damages, compulsorily involves some guesswork and hypothetical considerations, however, efforts should be made to adjudicate these on the basis of objective parameters rather than guided by subjective sympathy. The nature and severity of injury, the age, nature of disability are some of those parameters. Given hereunder are various heads under which compensation for non-pecuniary loss (general damages) is assessed:
MACT No.: 311/2023 Anil Kumar Vs. Sunder Singh Yadav & Ors. Page No. 35 of 43
(f) Damages for pain & suffering as well as mental and physical trauma: The injured has suffered grievous injuries, including traumatic brain injury, resulting in substantial and long-term disability. The medical record reflects prolonged hospitalization, multiple surgical interventions, and continuous treatment, indicating the severity of trauma suffered. Such injuries not only cause intense physical pain during the period of treatment and recovery but also lead to lasting discomfort, loss of normal bodily functions, and reduced quality of life. Further, the injured has undergone significant mental and emotional distress on account of the accident, prolonged medical condition, dependency on others, and uncertainty regarding recovery. The impact of such injuries extends beyond physical suffering and affects the psychological well-being and day-to-day life of the injured. Considering the nature and extent of injuries, duration of treatment, degree of disability, and overall impact on the life of the injured, a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- is awarded towards pain and suffering and a further sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- is awarded towards mental and physical trauma, making a total of Rs. 6,00,000/-
under this head.
(g) Loss of amenities of life: This head compensates the injured for the loss of ability to enjoy the normal amenities of life as a healthy person would, considering the age and the extent of deprivation caused due to the injuries. In the present case, the injured has suffered serious and long-term disability, which has adversely affected his ability to carry out day-to-day activities, engage in social interactions, and enjoy a normal lifestyle. The permanent impact of the injuries has resulted in a significant MACT No.: 311/2023 Anil Kumar Vs. Sunder Singh Yadav & Ors. Page No. 36 of 43 reduction in the quality of life and enjoyment of ordinary pursuits. Considering the nature and extent of injuries, degree of disability, and the resultant deprivation faced by the injured, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities of life.
26. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that PW-3 Sh. Sanad Kumar Agnihotri, Manager (HR), Sterling Ornaments Pvt. Ltd., was examined to prove the employment and income of the injured. He has also relied upon Ex. PW3/8, which reflects the gratuity/terminal settlement amount of Rs. 2,78,945/-. However, it is settled that amounts such as gratuity and other service/terminal benefits are not liable to be deducted from the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act, as the same are independent statutory or contractual entitlements of the employee and do not constitute pecuniary advantage flowing from the accident. Accordingly, the said amount of Rs. 2,78,945/- is not liable to be deducted. Further, there is no dispute raised by the insurance company in this regard.
27. 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 : This Rs. 2,24,499/- amount also includes future medical expenses also. (ii) Expenditure on Conveyance : As Rs.1,00,000/- discussed above. MACT No.: 311/2023 Anil Kumar Vs. Sunder Singh Yadav & Ors. Page No. 37 of 43 (iii) Expenditure on special diet : As Rs.1,00,000/- discussed above. (iv) Cost of nursing / attendant : Rs.12,96,000/- Attendant charges are awarded for (Rs.2,40,000/- + Rs.10,56,000/-) recovery period as well as for future needs. (v) Loss of earning during the period of Rs.3,58,140/- treatment: (vi) Loss of Future Income Rs.43,33,494/- 2. Non-Pecuniary Loss : (i) Damages for pain, suffering and Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rs.3,00,000/- + Rs.3,00,000/-) trauma on account of injuries: (ii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 1,00,000/- 3 Total Compensation Rs.71,12,133/- 4 Deduction, if any, Nil 5 Total Compensation after deduction Rs.71,12,133/- 6 Interest As directed below 28. Interest (a). In Ram Charan & Ors. vs. The New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. (MAC Appeal No. 433/2013, decided on 18.10.2022), while relying upon the principles laid down in Abati Bezbaruah vs. Geological Survey of India, it has been observed that the grant of interest under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act is a matter of judicial discretion and no uniform rate can be fixed, as the same must be just and reasonable depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case, including factors such as inflation, economic conditions, period of pendency, nature of injuries and MACT No.: 311/2023 Anil Kumar Vs. Sunder Singh Yadav & Ors. Page No. 38 of 43 extent of suffering. It was further held that interest is awarded as compensation for the deprivation of money which ought to have been paid. Having regard to the aforesaid principles and the prevailing economic conditions, as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Erudhaya Priya vs. State Express Transport Corporation decided on 27 July, 2020, Civil Appeal Nos. 2811-2812 OF 2020 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.8495- 8496 of 2018], this Tribunal deems it appropriate to award interest @ 9% per annum on the compensation amount in the present case.
29. LIABILITY
(a) Insurance Company has conceded valid and effective Insurance Policy on the date of accident and has not raised any statutory defence. It has already been held that accident occurred on account of speedy and rash driving of offending vehicle. It is settled that Insurance Company is responsible to indemnify owner / insured for vicarious liability incurred by tort feaser. Therefore, such principal award amount/compensation will be payable by the insurance company of offending vehicle with simple interest 9% from the date of filing of DAR till 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).
MACT No.: 311/2023 Anil Kumar Vs. Sunder Singh Yadav & Ors. Page No. 39 of 43
30. 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 110002342, under intimation to the Nazir of this Tribunal.
31. Release of Award Amount/ Disbursement
(a) Out of total award amount Rs.60,00,000/- along with proportionate interest is directed to be kept in form of monthly FDR of Rs.50,000/- each. Remaining amount shall be released in his bank account as per details.
32. 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.
33. Directions to the Branch Manager, SBI, Saket Court MACT No.: 311/2023 Anil Kumar Vs. Sunder Singh Yadav & Ors. Page No. 40 of 43 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.
34. Directions with respect to Fixed Deposit:
(a) As per Practice Directions, Hon'ble High Court, vide reference no. 134/Rules/DHC, dated 14.05.2025, the bank shall invest the amount to be deposited in fixed deposit with any nationalised bank and fixed deposit shall be with the standing instructions to the bank to renew the same after periodical intervals till further orders are passed by the Tribunal.
(b) The Bank shall not permit any joint name (s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of victim i.e. the savings bank account of the claimant shall be individual savings bank account and not a joint account.
(c) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant.
(d) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(e) The maturity amounts of the FDR (s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(f) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
MACT No.: 311/2023 Anil Kumar Vs. Sunder Singh Yadav & Ors. Page No. 41 of 43
(g) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/ or debit card to claimant (s). 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. The bank shall debit freeze the account of the claimant so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant from any other branch of the bank.
(h) 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 and claimant shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
35. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD.
1 Date of accident 03.09.2022 2 Name of injured Anil Kumar 3 Age of the injured 54 years 4 Occupation of the Private job injured 5 Income of the injured As per record 6 Nature injury Grievous injury and disability 7 Medical treatment taken As per record.
by the injured:
MACT No.: 311/2023 Anil Kumar Vs. Sunder Singh Yadav & Ors. Page No. 42 of 43
8 Period of As per record.
Hospitalization
9 Whether any permanent Grievous injury and
disability? disability
36. Copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost. The copy of award be sent to Ld. Secretary, DLSA and Ld. Concerned Criminal Court. Digitally signed ADITI by ADITI GARG Date:
2026.04.21 Announced in the open court on 21.04.2026 GARG 15:56:34 +0530 (Aditi Garg) PO (MACT)-02, SE/Saket/Delhi 21.04.2026 MACT No.: 311/2023 Anil Kumar Vs. Sunder Singh Yadav & Ors. Page No. 43 of 43