Delhi District Court
Mithlesh Gupta vs Paramjit Singh on 20 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
DLCT010050742022
MACT No. : 396/2022
FIR No. : 306/2019
PS : Thanesar Sadar, Kurukshetra, Haryana
u/s : 304A/337/338 IPC
Mithlesh Gupta
W/o Sh. Narender Gupta
R/o E-16/622, Padam Singh Road,
Bapa Nagar, Karol Bagh,
Delhi-110005.
.......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Paramjit Singh(DRIVER)
S/o Sh. Surjit Singh
R/o VPO Jhanjoti Teh Ajnala,
Amritsar-143001.
2. Sh. Mangat Ram Mehta (Owner)
S/o Sh. Raghunath,
R/o Village Gurha Singh Chak Shaman,
Jammu & Kashmir-181206.
3. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (Insurer)
Town Hall Building, First Floor,
Admin Block, Jammu,
Jammu & Kashmir -180001.
.....Respondents
Date of filing of Petition : 22.04.2022
Judgment reserved on : 31.01.2026
Date of Award : 20.03.2026 Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.03.20
15:35:38
+0530
MACT no. 396/2022 Mithlesh Gupta Vs. Paramjit Singh & Ors. Page 1 of 33
AWAR D
1. The Detailed Accident Report (DAR) was filed on
22.04.2022 and was registered as a Motor Accident Claim petition.
Earlier, the petition was dismissed by the Ld. Predecessor Tribunal vide
order dated 26.04.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal
before the Hon'ble High Court. Vide order dated 14.05.2024, the order
dated 26.04.2022 was set aside and the present matter was remanded to
this Tribunal for trial.
2. The present claim petition revealed that a Road Traffic
Accident took place on 13.07.2019 at 02:45 am near Rakba Village
Sanwala, GT Road, District Kurukshetra, Haryana wherein Smt.
Mithlesh Gupta had sustained injury. The accident took place with the
vehicle bearing registration No. UP17AT4406 driven rashly and
negligently by respondent no. 1 Paramjit Singh, owned by respondent
no.2, Mangat Ram Mehta and insured with respondent no.3, ICICI
Lombard General Insurance Ltd.
BRIEF FACTS
3. The brief facts that have emerged from the claim petition are that on 12.07.2019, the petitioner alongwith her family members boarded a bus bearing no. UP-17AT-4406 from Red Fort, Delhi at around 10:50 pm to travel to Amritsar. It is further stated that the respondent no. 1 was driving the said bus rashly, negligently and at an extraordinary high speed in a zig-zag manner, ignoring most of the Digitally signed RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2026.03.20 15:35:44 +0530 MACT no. 396/2022 Mithlesh Gupta Vs. Paramjit Singh & Ors. Page 2 of 33 traffic rules and speed parameters. It is further stated that the petitioner, her family members and other people who were travelling in the said bus, after noticing the same, repeatedly requested/cautioned the driver to drive the bus carefully and to follow all the traffic guidelines but the driver did not pay any heed to their request/caution.
4. It is further stated that at about 2:45 am, when they reached near Rakba village Sanwala, GT Road, District Kurukshetra, Haryana, the respondent no. 1 i.e. driver of the offending vehicle while attempting to overtake another vehicle, bumped the bus to side of the curb and into the railing of the divider of the road, consequent to which the bus overturned on the road. It is further stated that the accident was very serious in nature and while the passengers were trying hard to evacuate, suddenly the said bus caught fire. It is further stated that the accident was so serious in nature due to which the mother-in-law of petitioner Late Ms. Geeta Devi got struck into the bus and got burnt alive in the bus. As a result of which, Ms. Geeta Devi died on the spot.
5. It is further stated that an FIR no.0306/2019 PS Thanesar Sadar, U/s.279/304A/37/338 IPC dated 13.07.2019 was registered against the respondent no. 1 for causing the accident in question and the charge sheet has been filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. It is further stated that due to aforesaid accident, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and petitioner also suffered mental trauma of losing her mother-in-law. It is further stated that the petitioner was initially admitted in Anand Orthopedic Centre, Kurukshetra where her X-ray was conducted and thereafter the petitioner was shifted to B L Kapoor Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2026.03.20 15:35:50 +0530 MACT no. 396/2022 Mithlesh Gupta Vs. Paramjit Singh & Ors. Page 3 of 33 Hospital, Delhi, where her treatment was continued.
6. It is further stated that the petitioner is a housewife and due to this accident, the petitioner unable to fulfill her household duties and carry on with her day to day activities. The doctors have advised the petitioner to continue physiotherapy treatment. It is further stated that the petitioner will not be able to enjoy her life and won't be able to run or walk properly in the future and extreme trauma has been caused to the petitioner due to the said accident which includes the trauma of losing her beloved mother-in-law and grievous injury of many of her family members.
7. It is further stated that the present accident was caused by the rash and negligent act of the respondent no. 1 and petitioner incurred more than Rs.1,50,000/- on medical expenses which is continuing to incur on daily basis. It is further stated that petitioner has misplaced some of the medical bills and treatment records. It is further stated that the petitioner has incurred Rs.15,000/- on x rays, Rs. 35,000/- on Physiotherapy sessions, Rs.25,000/- on Conveyance, Rs.25,000/- on Special Diet and Supplements, Rs. 10,000/- on medicines till date and she is still further incurring the amount on the said heads as her treatment is still going on. It is further stated that the petitioner has also incurred an amount of Rs.50,000/- on psychiatric sessions.
WRITTEN STATEMENTS
8. None appeared on behalf of the respondent no.1 despite service of summons. Hence, he was proceeded against ex parte vide Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.03.20 15:35:56 +0530 MACT no. 396/2022 Mithlesh Gupta Vs. Paramjit Singh & Ors. Page 4 of 33 order dated 06.11.2024.
9. WS was filed by the respondent no. 2 on 23.10.2024. It was stated that the respondent no.1 was driving his vehicle as per the traffic rules and regulations and there was no negligent driving on his behalf. It is further stated that other vehicle came from the left side and tried to overtake the offending vehicle. He forcefully came into the lane of the offending vehicle due to which the offending vehicle collided with that vehicle and overturned. Thereafter, the offending vehicle caught fire. Hence, it is stated that the accident was not caused by the respondents and they were not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.
10. Separate WS was filed on behalf of respondent no. 3. It was admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no. 3 company vide policy No. 262101/31/2019/3731 valid from 25.01.2019 to 24.01.2020. However, it was stated that no liability could be imposed on the respondent no.3 unless the rash and negligent act of the respondent no.1 could be proved. Further, it was stated that the respondent no. 3 was entitled to take all such defences as were available to the respondent no.3 as per law, as it must be proved on record that the respondent no.1 had a valid driving license and permit at the time of the accident. Further, as per the investigation report of the respondent no.3, the respondent no.1 was under the influence of liquor at the time of the accident.
ISSUES
11. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated Digitally signed RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2026.03.20 15:36:02 +0530 MACT no. 396/2022 Mithlesh Gupta Vs. Paramjit Singh & Ors. Page 5 of 33 05.03.2024, this Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the injured suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 13.07.2019 at about 02:45 am near Rakba Village Sanwala, GT Road, District Kurukshetra, Haryana-136132 involving vehicle bearing registration No. UP-17AT-4406 driven rashly and negligently by respondent no. 1 Paramjit Singh, owned by respondent no. 2 Mangat Ram Mehta and insured with respondent no. 3 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner/injured is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
OPP.
3. Relief.
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
12. The petitioner/injured examined herself as PW-1. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW-1/A and the same bears her signatures at points-A & Β. She relied upon the following documents:
1. Copy of Aadhar Card of deponent Ex. PW-1/1.
2. True Copy of Driving License of respondent no. 1 was Ex. PW-1/2.
3. True Copy of cover note of the insurance policy of the offending vehicle was Ex. PW-1/3.
4. Registration certificate of offending vehicle was Ex. PW-1/4.
5. True copy of FIR no. 306/2019 was Ex. PW-1/5.
6. True copy of charge sheet, which includes death certificate of Geeta Devi was Ex. PW-1/6).
7. True copy of photographs of offending vehicle was Ex. PW-1/7.
8. True copy of Medical Bills was Ex. PW-1/8.Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2026.03.20 15:36:08 +0530 MACT no. 396/2022 Mithlesh Gupta Vs. Paramjit Singh & Ors. Page 6 of 33
9. True copy of site inspection report was Ex. PW-1/9. (Certified copy seen and returned).
10. News Article dated 13.07.2019 alongwith certificate u/s 63 of BSA was Ex.PW-1/10.
13. Thereafter, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. Hence, their opportunity to cross examine the witness was closed. Hence, PE was closed vide order dated 19.07.2025.
RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE
14. The respondent no. 2 examined himself as R2W1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.R2W1/A and the same bears his signatures at points-A & Β. He relied upon the following documents:
1. Copy of Registration Certificate as Mark A-1.
2. Copy of DL as Mark A-2.
3. Copy of insurance policy as Mark A-3.
4. Copies of fitness and permit are Mark A-4 & Mark A-5.
15. He was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for petitioner and respondent no.3. Thereafter, RE on behalf of respondents no. 1 and 2 was closed vide order dt. 26.11.2025 and RE on behalf of respondent no. 3 was closed vide order dt. 21.01.2026.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
16. The Petitioner has filed his duly filled Form XIV and financial statement of the injured was recorded. Final arguments were Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
MACT no. 396/2022 Mithlesh Gupta Vs. Paramjit Singh & Ors. Page 7 of 332026.03.20 15:36:15 +0530 heard on behalf of the petitioner and respondents.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
17. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Ld. Counsel for respondents and perused the record. My findings on the various issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1:
Whether the petitioner/injured suffered grievous injuries in an accident that took place on 10.11.2022 at about 03:50 hours at Hanuman Mandir, Yamuna Bazar, Kashmere Gate, Delhi involving vehicle bearing registration no. DL1GC 4981 driven rashly and negligently by respondent no. 1 Mangla Prasad and owned by respondent no. 2 Santosh Kumar?
18. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that on 13.07.2019 at about 02:45 am, the petitioner and his family were travelling in the offending vehicle. It is stated that the respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and when the offending vehicle reached near Rakba Village Sanwala, GT Road, District Kurukshetra, Haryana, the respondent no.1 tried to overtake a bus and bumped into the curb and into the raining of the divider, due to which bus overturned. Subsequently, while the passengers were trying to get off the bus, the bus caught fire and the petitioner suffered injuries. The petitioner has reiterated the said facts on oath as PW1. It is further submitted that the offending vehicle was found at the spot by the IO. The petitioner was Digitally signed RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2026.03.20 15:36:20 +0530 MACT no. 396/2022 Mithlesh Gupta Vs. Paramjit Singh & Ors. Page 8 of 33 treated at the hospital wherein it has specifically mentioned that the injuries are due to a road traffic accident. The respondent no.1 was chargesheeted by the IO for the offences under Section 279/338/337/304A IPC. Hence, it is submitted that it is proved that the respondent no. 1 was driving the negligent in a rash and negligent manner due to which the petitioner suffered injuries.
19. Per contra, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 that the respondent no.1 was driving his vehicle as per the traffic rules and regulations and there was no negligent driving on his behalf. It is further stated that some other vehicle came from the left side and tried to overtake the offending vehicle. He forcefully came into the lane of the offending vehicle due to which the offending vehicle collided with that vehicle and overturned. Thereafter, the offending vehicle caught fire. Hence, it is argued that the respondent no.1 was not driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently.
20. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 that the respondent no.1 was inebriated at the time of the accident. Further, he was driving the offending vehicle without any valid driving license and permit. Hence, the conditions of the insurance policy were violated. Hence, the respondent no.3 was not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.
21. Record perused.
22. In the present case, it is not disputed that the petitioner was Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA 15:36:26 Date: 2026.03.20 +0530 MACT no. 396/2022 Mithlesh Gupta Vs. Paramjit Singh & Ors. Page 9 of 33 travelling in the offending vehicle. It is also admitted that the offending vehicle overturned and caught fire. The respondent no.2 has taken this defence that some other vehicle came from the left side and tried to overtake the offending vehicle. It is further stated that he forcefully came into the lane of the offending vehicle due to which the offending vehicle collided with that vehicle and overturned. However, as such, no evidence was led by the respondent no.2 to prove this fact. RW2 i.e. the respondent no.2 admitted in his cross-examination that he was not an eye witness to the said accident. Further, the respondent no.1 did not come forward to prove this version by entering into the witness box.
23. It is pertinent to mention here that in the proceedings before the claims tribunal, the facts are to be established on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and not by the strict rules of evidence or the higher standard of beyond reasonable doubt as required in criminal cases. The burden of proof in the present cases is much lower than as placed in civil or criminal cases. In Bimla Devi & Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors (2009) 13 SC 530, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that negligence must be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view must be adopted in reaching a conclusion.
24. Further, it is also pertinent to note that the respondent no. 1 was chargesheeted by the IO under Section 279/337/338/304A IPC. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepak Goel & Ors, 2014 (2) TAC 846 (Del) decided by the Coordinate Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Digitally signed RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2026.03.20 15:36:31 +0530 MACT no. 396/2022 Mithlesh Gupta Vs. Paramjit Singh & Ors. Page 10 of 33 Court, it was held as under :-
"......where the claimants filed either the certified copies of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of investigation by police or issuance of charge sheet under Section 279/304A IPC or the certified copy of FIR or the recovery of the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, then these documents are sufficient proof to reach to a conclusion that the driver was negligent particularly when there is no defence available from the side of driver."
25. Reliance is also being placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meera Devi, 2021 LawSuit (Del) wherein it was held that "......in view of Delhi Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rules, 2008, contents of DAR has to be presumed to be correct and read in evidence without formal proof of the same unless proof to the contrary was produced."
26. Further, as mentioned above, the factum of the accident is not disputed. The offending vehicle was found by the IO at the spot in an accidental condition. The respondent no.1 was chargesheeted by the IO. Even otherwise, the petitioner was unknown to respondent no.1 prior to the accident and admittedly, there was no prior enmity with respondent no. 1 and hence, it is beyond comprehension as to why the petitioner will implicate respondent no.1 falsely, had he not been driving the offending vehicle.
27. It is a settled law that the petitioner cannot be expected to prove the accident beyond reasonable doubts and the principle of res ipse loquitor should apply which means that the "accident speaks for Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2026.03.20 MACT no. 396/2022 Mithlesh Gupta Vs. Paramjit Singh & Ors. 15:36:38 +0530 Page 11 of 33 itself". Thus, once it has been established in DAR and chargesheet that the accident had taken place, the burden shifts on the respondents to prove that they were not responsible for the accident which the respondents have failed to discharge. No evidence was led by the respondents no. 1 & 2 to discharge this onus. Hence, an adverse inference is drawn against the respondents. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the cases of Teja Singh Vs Suman & Ors., MAC. APP. 1111/2018 & CM APPL. 52384/2018, 52386/2018, date of decision 06/12/2019; MAC. APP. 428/2018, titled as The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamla Devi & Ors, date of decision 08.11.2019 and MAC. APP. 690/2017 & CM APPL. 28108/2017, titled as Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mona & Ors., date of decision 15.10.2019, which had relied upon the judgment in the case of Cholamandalam Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamlesh 2009(3) AD Delhi 310.
28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2018) 5 SCC 656 has laid down in paragraphs 27 & 28:
"27. ...This Court in a recent decision in Dulcina Fernandes, noted that the key of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle as set up by the claimants was required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Suffice it to observe that the exposition in the judgments already adverted to by us, filing of chargesheet against Respondent 2 prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. Further, even when the Digitally signed RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2026.03.20 15:36:47 +0530 MACT no. 396/2022 Mithlesh Gupta Vs. Paramjit Singh & Ors. Page 12 of 33 accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, this Court opined that the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal.
28. Reliance placed upon the decisions in Minu B. Mehta and Meena Variyal, by the respondents, in our opinion, is of no avail. The dictum in these cases is on the matter in issue in the case concerned. Similarly, even the dictum in Surender Kumar Arora will be of no avail. In the present case, considering the entirety of the pleadings, evidence and circumstances on record and in particular the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the factum of negligence of Respondent 2, the driver of the offending jeep, the High Court committed manifest error in taking a contrary view which, in our opinion, is an error apparent on the face of record and manifestly wrong."
29. It has not been disputed that respondent No.1 has been charge-sheeted in the aforesaid FIR for offences punishable under Section 279/337/338/304A IPC for rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. In view of the same, considering the facts and circumstances, the unrebutted testimony of the petitioner and the documents filed thereto, the court is satisfied that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent no. 1. From the DAR, it also stands established that respondent no. 2 was the registered owner of the offending vehicle. It is also an admitted position that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no.3. The factum of the said insurance is also admitted by the respondent no.3 insurance company.
Digitally signed by RUCHIKARUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.03.20 15:36:54 +0530 MACT no. 396/2022 Mithlesh Gupta Vs. Paramjit Singh & Ors. Page 13 of 33 The injury:
30. Further, the onus to prove that the petitioner had suffered injuries by way of the said accident was on the petitioner. It is the matter of record that due to the accident, the petitioner suffered injuries. To prove the same, the petitioner has relied upon her medical documents Ex. PW1/8 (colly). As per her medico-legal certificate dated 13.07.2019 issued by Anand Orthopedic Centre, Kurukshetra, she was brought to the hospital with history of road traffic accident. She had a lacerated wound on her forehead and nose. Her Discharge Summary issued by Anand Orthopedic Centre, Kurukshetra shows that she had a day admission in the hospital and was found to have suffered a fracture in her nasal bone. She took further treatment from BLK Hospital, Delhi and then at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi.
31. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is of the opinion that on the scales of preponderance of probabilities, the petitioner has proved that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle being driven by its driver/respondent no. 1 on the date and time of the accident and that due to the said accident, the petitioner had suffered grievous injury. Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2:
Whether the petitioner/injured is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.Digitally signed by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.03.20 15:37:00 +0530 MACT no. 396/2022 Mithlesh Gupta Vs. Paramjit Singh & Ors. Page 14 of 33
32. The onus to prove this issue was also upon the petitioner. In view of the observations as given in issue no.1, the petitioner is entitled for compensation. In the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 34, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"General principles relating to compensation in injury cases
4. The provision of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`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 tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376, R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467).
5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following :
Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2026.03.20 15:37:07 +0530 MACT no. 396/2022 Mithlesh Gupta Vs. Paramjit Singh & Ors. Page 15 of 33
(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)."
33. In view of the above law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in injury cases, award needs to be passed only under heads of medical expenses, loss of earning during treatment period and damages for pain, suffering and trauma. This is a case where the petitioner has claimed that he suffered grievous injury due to the accident, hence, this Tribunal now proceeds further step by step to decide the compensation/award under different heads applicable to the present matter in light of above preposition.
Medical expenses:
33. The petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-
approximately towards medical expenses. The bills which are on record are Ex. PW1/8 to the tune of Rs. 18,915/-. The said bills seem to be of Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2026.03.20 15:37:13 +0530 MACT no. 396/2022 Mithlesh Gupta Vs. Paramjit Singh & Ors. Page 16 of 33 her entire treatment. However, in the claim petition, the petitioner has mentioned that she has got mediclaim to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-. There are no bills to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-. Hence, the petitioner is not awarded any sum under this head.
Loss of income:
34. In this regard, no compensation is claimed by the petitioner as she is a housewife. Even if that may be, the Tribunal has to consider as to whether she would have been able to go about her daily activities and do the household work due to the accident or not. As per the medical record of the petitioner, she had suffered grievous injuries. She has proved on record her treatment papers Ex. PW1/8, as per which she went for follow up visits till 20.08.2019. In view of the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner, it can be said that she would have been unable to work for 3 months. Hence, she is granted loss of income for 3 months.
35. In case titled as Abdul Awal @ Auwal v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. MAC App. 989/2018 decided on 02.03.2023 by the Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati, it has been observed that a housewife's income may be assessed as per the minimum wages applicable for an unskilled worker. Similar observations have been given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muhammed Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 8960/2017 decided on 01.12.2022. However, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Jagdish v. Om Pal Singh & Ors. MAC App. 279/2019 decided on 10.12.2024 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dalvir Singh & Ors. [(2025) SCC OnLine Del 844] has held that Digitally signed RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2026.03.20 15:37:18 +0530 MACT no. 396/2022 Mithlesh Gupta Vs. Paramjit Singh & Ors. Page 17 of 33 minimum wages of a skilled workman is to be taken for the purpose of assessment of income in case of housewives. The petitioner is residing at Delhi. The date of the accident is 13.07.2019. Hence, as per the relevant notification, her monthly income is assessed to be Rs.17,508/-. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to the loss of income for 3 months i.e. Rs.17,508/- x 3 = Rs. 52,524/-.
Special diet:
36. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards special diet. No evidence is led to prove that this amount was spent on special diet. However, keeping in view the nature of injury suffered by the petitioner, it seems that she must have required special diet and must have incurred expenditure towards special diet, therefore, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under the head of special diet.
Conveyance charges:
37. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards conveyance charges. No evidence is led to prove that this amount was spent on conveyance. However, considering her injuries, this Tribunal is of the view that the petitioner must have spent money on conveyance thus, the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards conveyance charges.
Attendant charges:
38. The petitioner has not claimed any amount under this head.
Digitally signed by RUCHIKARUCHIKA SINGLA Date: SINGLA 2026.03.20 15:37:24 +0530 MACT no. 396/2022 Mithlesh Gupta Vs. Paramjit Singh & Ors. Page 18 of 33 Pain & Suffering:
39. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs. 10,000/- under the head pain and suffering. It is not possible to quantify the compensation admissible to petitioner for the shock, pain and sufferings etc. which she actually suffered because of the above injuries, but as stated above, an effort has to be made to compensate her for the same in a just and reasonable manner. Hence, keeping in view the extent and nature of the injuries suffered by petitioner and duration of the treatment taken by her etc., she is awarded a total amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner.
Mental and physical shock:
40. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs. 40,000/- for loss due to mental shock. Although, there is nothing on record to prove the same but keeping in view her injuries, it cannot be denied that she would definitely have suffered mental agony. Hence, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under head of "Loss due to Mental & Physical Shock".
Loss of amenities:
41. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs. 20,000/- under this head. Although, there is nothing on record to prove the same but keeping in view her injuries, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
Disfiguration & Loss of marriage prospects
42. The petitioner has not claimed any amount under these Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2026.03.20 15:37:30 +0530 MACT no. 396/2022 Mithlesh Gupta Vs. Paramjit Singh & Ors. Page 19 of 33 heads.
Loss of earning, inconvenience, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.:
43. The petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- under this head. Considering the nature of the injuries suffered by the petitioner, a sum of Rs.5,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
Loss of future income
44. The petitioner/injured has claimed compensation under this head. However, she has suffered grievous injury and there is nothing on record that the said accident shall hamper her future activities. Hence, no amount is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
45. Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the material on record, and the settled principles and guidelines governing the injury cases like the present one, the compensation is being derived in the present case as under:-
NAME OF HEAD AMOUNT (in Rupees) Expenditure on Treatment Nil Monthly income of injured Rs.17,508/- Loss of income x 3 months Rs. 52,524/- Add future prospects Nil Loss of future income (income X Nil Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2026.03.20 15:37:36 +0530 MACT no. 396/2022 Mithlesh Gupta Vs. Paramjit Singh & Ors. Page 20 of 33 % Earning Capacity X Multiplier) Any other loss/expenditure Nil Expense on special diet Rs. 15,000/- Conveyance charges Rs. 15,000/- Attendant charges Nil
Mental & Physical Shock & Pain & Rs. 10,000/- + Rs. 25,000/- = Rs.
Suffering 35,000/- Loss of amenities Rs. 10,000/- Disfiguration Nil Loss of marriage prospects Nil
Loss of earning, inconvenience, Rs. 5,000/-
hardship, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc. Total Rs. 1,32,524/-
46. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @ Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld awarding of 9% interest per annum. Therefore, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 22.04.2022 till realization.
Digitally signed by RUCHIKARUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.03.20 15:37:42 +0530 MACT no. 396/2022 Mithlesh Gupta Vs. Paramjit Singh & Ors. Page 21 of 33 DISBURSEMENT
47. The Financial Statement of petitioner/injured was recorded by this Court/Tribunal. As per the said statement, the monthly expenses of her family are approximately Rs. 80,000/- per month.
48. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide orders dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 under the title Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors. has given the following directions:
"(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name to be added in the saving account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimants i.e. saving bank accounts of the claimants shall be an individual saving bank account and not a joint account.
(ii) 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 claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited by the ECS in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without the permission of the court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimants. 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 card(s) freeze the account of claimants so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of claimants from any other branch of the bank.Digitally signed
RUCHIKA SINGLA by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.03.20 15:37:48 +0530 MACT no. 396/2022 Mithlesh Gupta Vs. Paramjit Singh & Ors. Page 22 of 33
(vi) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque books and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and the claimant shall produced the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court for compliance."
49. However, in a recent judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India titled as Parminder Singh vs Honey Goyal on 18 March, 2025 in S.L.P. (C) No. 4484 OF 2020 has held that :
"17. The case in hand pertains to the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. The general practice followed by the insurance companies, where the compensation is not disputed, is to deposit the same before the Tribunal. Instead of following that process, a direction can always be issued to transfer the amount into the bank account(s) of the claimant(s) with intimation to the Tribunal.
17.1 For that purpose, the Tribunals at the initial stage of pleadings or at the stage of leading evidence may require the claimant(s) to furnish their bank account particulars to the Tribunal along with the requisite proof, so that at the stage of passing of the award the Tribunal may direct that the amount of compensation be transferred in the account of the claimant and if there are more than one then in their respective accounts. If there is no bank account, then they should be required to open the bank account either individually or jointly with family members Digitally signed RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2026.03.20 15:37:54 +0530 MACT no. 396/2022 Mithlesh Gupta Vs. Paramjit Singh & Ors. Page 23 of 33 only. It should also be mandated that, in case there is any change in the bank account particulars of the claimant(s) during the pendency of the claim petition they should update the same before the Tribunal. This should be ensured before passing of the final award. It may be ensured that the bank account should be in the name of the claimant(s) and if minor, through guardian(s) and in no case it should be a joint account with any person, who is not a family member. The transfer of the amount in the bank account, particulars of which have been furnished by the claimant(s), as mentioned in the award, shall be treated as satisfaction of the award. Intimation of compliance should be furnished to the Tribunal."
50. In view of the same, the award amount can now be disbursed in the Savings Bank Account of the petitioner. However, the remaining directions as passed by the Hon'ble High Court shall be complied with.
51. After considering the financial statement of the petitioner, it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 1,55,300/- (Rupees One Lac Fifty Five Thousand Three Hundred only), the entire amount be released to the petitioner/claimant immediately in her bank account. The petitioner has placed on record copy of a cheque but the account is a joint account. The amount has to be disbursed in an individually held account. Hence, the petitioner is directed to furnish copy of passbook of her individually held bank account.
Digitally signedRUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2026.03.20 15:38:00 +0530 MACT no. 396/2022 Mithlesh Gupta Vs. Paramjit Singh & Ors. Page 24 of 33
52. In compliance of the directions given by Hon'ble High Court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 08.01.2021, Summary of the Award in the prescribed Format-XVI is as under:
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
Date of Accident: 13.07.2019
Name of the Injured: Mithlesh Gupta
Age of the Injured: Presently 62 years
Occupation of the Injured: Housewife
Income of the Injured: Rs. 17,508/- pm
Nature of Injury: Grievous
Medical Treatment taken: Anand Orthopedic Centre,
Kurukshetra, B L Kapoor Hospital,
Delhi & Sir Ganga Ram
Hospital, Delhi
Period of Hospitalization: 13.07.2019
Whether any permanent: No
disability?
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
Sr. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
No.
1. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on Treatment Nil
(ii) Expenditure on Special Diet Rs. 15,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on Nil
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.03.20
15:38:06 +0530
MACT no. 396/2022 Mithlesh Gupta Vs. Paramjit Singh & Ors. Page 25 of 33
Nursing/Attendant charges
(iv) Expenditure on Conveyance Rs. 15,000/-
(v) Monthly income of injured Rs.17,508/-
(vi) Loss of income x 3 months Rs. 52,524/-
(vii) Add future prospects Nil
viii) Any other loss which may Nil
require any special treatment or
aid to the injured for the rest of
his life
2. Non Pecuniary Loss
(i) Compensation for mental and Rs. 10,000/- + Rs. 25,000/- = Rs. 35,000/- physical shock
(ii) Pain and Sufferings
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 10,000/-
(iv) Nil
Disfiguration
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Nil
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, Rs. 5,000/-
hardships, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and unhappiness in
future life etc.
3. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability assessed Nil and nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of Nil.
expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning Nil capacity in relation to disability Digitally signed RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2026.03.20 15:38:13 +0530 MACT no. 396/2022 Mithlesh Gupta Vs. Paramjit Singh & Ors. Page 26 of 33
(iv) Loss of future income - (income Nil x % earning capacity x Multiplier)
4. Total Compensation Rs. 1,32,524/-
5. Interest awarded 9%
6. Earlier award amount (which has already been received by the petitioner in terms of previous -
award passed by Ld.
Predecessor) to be deducted from
present award amount .
7. Interest amount upto the date of Rs.22,775.97 (rounded off to Rs.22,776/-)
award w.e.f. 22.04.2022 till
realization
8. Total amount including Interest Rs. 1,55,300/-
9. Award amount released As mentioned in para nos. 51
10. Award amount kept in FDRs Nil
11. Mode of disbursement of the As mentioned in para no. 51
award amount of the claimant(s)
12. Next date for compliance of the 20.04.2026
award
LIABILITY:
53. It has been established that the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1 and that respondent no.2 is the owner of the same and the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no. 3. In the WS, the respondent no. 3 took this defence that the respondent no.1 did not have a valid driving license and permit at the time of the accident. Further, as per the investigation report of the respondent no.3, Digitally signed RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2026.03.20 15:38:20 +0530 MACT no. 396/2022 Mithlesh Gupta Vs. Paramjit Singh & Ors. Page 27 of 33 the respondent no.1 was under the influence of liquor at the time of the accident. Hence, it was argued that the respondent no.3 was not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner as the terms and conditions of the policy were violated.
54. However, perusal of the record shows that the respondent no.2 proved the copy of the permit as Mark A-5. Copy of receipt of tax payment issued by State of Haryana as Mark A 6 and copy of DL of respondent no.1 as Mark A-2. Further, there is no evidence on record that the respondent no.1 was intoxicated at the time of the accident. Hence, the terms and conditions of the policy were not violated. Hence, it is directed that the respondent no. 3 shall be liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Issue No. 2 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
RELIEF:
55. The respondent no.3 is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,32,524/- (Rupees One Lac Thirty Two Thousand Five Hundred Twenty Four only) along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 22.04.2022 till realization with the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal within 30 days under intimation to the claimant, failing which the said respondent shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days. Reliance placed on case titled as Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @ Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Digitally signed byRUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2026.03.20 15:38:26 +0530 MACT no. 396/2022 Mithlesh Gupta Vs. Paramjit Singh & Ors. Page 28 of 33
56. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurance company for compliance within the time granted as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. The said respondent is further directed to give intimation of deposit of the compensation amount to the claimant and shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days of the deposit with a copy to the Claimant and his counsel.
Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of cost.
Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)].
Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on 20.04.2026 in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the time granted.
Further, Civil Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021 Digitally signed RUCHIKA SINGLA by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.03.20 15:38:31 +0530 MACT no. 396/2022 Mithlesh Gupta Vs. Paramjit Singh & Ors. Page 29 of 33 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court today on this 20th March 2026. Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2026.03.20 15:38:37 +0530 (RUCHIKA SINGLA) PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
MACT no. 396/2022 Mithlesh Gupta Vs. Paramjit Singh & Ors. Page 30 of 33THE PARTICULARS AS PER FORM-XVII, CENTRAL MOTOR VEHICLES (FIFTH AMENDMENT) RULES, 2022 (PL. SEE RULE 150A) ARE AS UNDER:-
1 Date of Accident 13.07.2019 2 Date of filing of Form-I -
N.A First Accident Report (FAR) 3 Date of delivery of Form-II N.A. to the victim(s) 4 Date of receipt of Form-III N.A. from the Driver 5 Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Owner N.A. 6 Date of filing of Form-V-
Particulars of the insurance N.A.
of the vehicle
7 Date of receipt of Form-VI
N.A
from the Victim(s)
8 Date of filing of claim 22.04.2022
petition.
9 Whether there was any delay
or deficiency on the part of
the Investigating Officer? If NA
so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the
Designated Officer by the 05.09.2024
Insurance Company
11 Whether the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company admitted his report No.
within 30 days of the claim
petition?
12 Whether there was any delay
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.03.20
15:38:45 +0530
MACT no. 396/2022 Mithlesh Gupta Vs. Paramjit Singh & Ors. Page 31 of 33
or deficiency on the part of N/A
the Designated Officer of the
Insurance Company? If so,
whether any action/direction
warranted?
13 Date of response of the NA
claimant(s) to the offer of
the Insurance Company.
14 Date of award 20.03.2026
15 Whether the claimant(s)
were directed to open No.
savings bank account(s) near
their place of residence?
16 Date of order by which
claimant(s) were directed to
open Savings Bank
Account(s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN
card and Aadhar Card and NA
the direction to the bank not
to issue any cheque
book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an
endorsement to this effect on
the passbook(s).
17 Date on which the
claimant(s) produced the
passbook of their savings
bank account(s) near the
31.01.2026
place of their residence
alongwith the endorsement,
PAN card and Aadhar Card?
18 Permanent residential
address of the claimant(s). As per Award.
19 Whether the claimant(s) No.
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2026.03.20
15:38:51
+0530
MACT no. 396/2022 Mithlesh Gupta Vs. Paramjit Singh & Ors. Page 32 of 33
savings bank account(s) is
near their place of
residence?
20 Whether the Claimant(s)
were examined at the time of
Yes. The Financial Statement of the
passing of the Award to
claimant was recorded 31.01.2026.
ascertain his/their financial
condition?
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.03.20
15:38:57 +0530
(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
20.03.2026
MACT no. 396/2022 Mithlesh Gupta Vs. Paramjit Singh & Ors. Page 33 of 33