Delhi District Court
Dar - Ankit Rastogi vs Ram Bahadur Singh on 28 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF VIJAY KUMAR JHA
PRESIDING OFFICER:
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-01, SHAHDARA
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
____________________________________________________________
In the matter of :
MACT no. 30/2020
Ankit Rastogi v. Ram Bahadur & Anr.
Ankit Rastogi
S/o Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Rastogi
R/o A-31/152, Gali no.5, Mata Mandir Marg,
Near Seth Bhagwan Das School, Maujpur,
North-East, Delhi-110053. ..........................Petitioner
Versus
1). Ram Bahadur Singh (Driver-cum-Owner)
S/o Sh. Suraj Singh
R/o A11/184, Gali no. 11, East Gokulpur, North-East Delhi.
Also at: Village Churehta, PS Rizor,
Tehsil & District Etah, U.P.
2). Magma HDI General Insurance Ltd.
1st Floor, H1A/16, Sector-63,
Noida-201301 (U.P.). .......................Respondents
Date of institution : 21.01.2020
Final arguments heard : 28.03.2025
Date of Award : 28.03.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The present DAR (Detailed Accident Report) was filed in respect of the injuries sustained by petitioner Ankit Rastogi in a motor vehicular accident occurred on 13.07.2019 within the jurisdiction of PS Nand Nagri, Delhi.
______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 30/2020; Ankit Rastogi v. Ram Bahadur Singh & Anr. 1 of 29 Pages
2. The material facts of the case as emerged from the DAR are that on 13.07.2019 at about 11:00 a.m., the petitioner Ankit Rastogi was going from Ghaziabad, U.P. towards Maujpur, Delhi, on his motorcycle bearing no. DL14SG-1323 (make Splendor) and when he reached at GTB Red Light, near Jyoti Nagar Flyover, Delhi, a tractor trolley (make Mahindra & Mahindra) bearing registration no. UP14DV-2038 (hereinafter, "offending vehicle"), being driven by respondent no.1 Ram Bahadur Singh at a high speed, rashly and negligently, came from the wrong side and hit the petitioner from the front. As a result of the accident, the petitioner received injuries. He was taken to GTB Hospital, Delhi, where his MLC no. B/012/23/19 was prepared and his treatment was done.
3. Along with the DAR, copy of charge-sheet has also been filed. As per the charge-sheet, on receipt of DD no. 4A dated 14.07.2019 regarding accident at GTB Red Light, the Investigating Officer along with Constable Lalit reached at the spot of accident where one motorcycle make-'Splendor' bearing registration no. DL14SG-1323 and one tractor make-'Mahindra & Mahindra' bearing registration no. UP14DV-2038 was found. The Investigating Officer came to know that the injured had been taken to GTB Hospital. At GTB Hospital, the investigating officer collected the MLC of the petitioner. The petitioner gave his complaint on the basis of which the FIR no. 378/2019, under sections 279/337 IPC was registered at PS Nand Nagri. During investigation, the Investigating Officer seized the offending vehicle and from the Registration Certificate, the address of the owner of the offending vehicle was ascertained ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 30/2020; Ankit Rastogi v. Ram Bahadur Singh & Anr. 2 of 29 Pages upon whom the notice under section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act was served. The owner of the offending vehicle in reply to the said notice stated that on the date of the accident, he himself was driving the offending vehicle. The Investigating Officer completed the investigation and on the basis of the facts ascertained during the investigation, the Investigating Officer was of the opinion that the respondent no.1 endangered the life or personal safety of others by his rash driving because of which the respondent no.1 was put in column no.11 of the charge-sheet, which was filed before the concerned court and DAR was filed before this Tribunal. The DAR has been treated as claim petition under section 166(4) of 'Motor Vehicles Act, 1988' on behalf of the injured/ petitioner.
4. In response to the DAR, both the respondents appeared, however, respondent no.1 did not file his written-statement despite opportunities granted and therefore, the opportunity to file written- statement on behalf of respondent no.1 was closed vide order dated 15.09.2021.
5. Respondent no.2/ insurance company filed written-statement, wherein it is submitted that the offending vehicle was duly insured with it vide policy no. P0019400002/4107/113206 for the period from 23.10.2018 to 22.10.2019 in the name of respondent no.1. Further, it is stated that, as per FIR, no eye-witness was found on the spot and mere seizure of the vehicle from the spot cannot constitute rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver. It is stated that the driver was not holding a valid driving license at the time of the ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 30/2020; Ankit Rastogi v. Ram Bahadur Singh & Anr. 3 of 29 Pages accident and has been challaned under section 3/181 of 'Motor Vehicle Act, 1988' and driving a vehicle without driving license constitutes breach of policy terms and conditions and hence, no liability can be fastened upon the insurance company.
6. Upon completion of pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 15.09.2021, following issues were framed:
1. Whether petitioner suffered injuries during the accident occurred on 13.07.2019 at about 11:00 p.m., at GTB Hospital Red Light, near Jyoti Nagar Flyover, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Nand Nagri, due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing no. UP14DV-2038, being driven by respondent no.1/ driver? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
7. In order to establish his claim, the petitioner got examined the following witnesses:
(a) PW1 Ankit Rastogi, the petitioner, testified on the strength of his affidavits Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/2 regarding the manner of accident, injuries sustained, treatment taken and losses suffered as a result of injuries and relied upon his following documents:-
i) Copy of Aadhaar Card as Ex.PW1/A (OSR).
ii) Copy of Driving License as Ex.PW1/B (OSR).
iii) MLC bearing no. B/012/23/19 as Ex.PW1/C (colly).
iv) Copy of Discharge Summary as Ex.PW1/D.
v) Medical Bills/ Summary as Ex.PW1/E (colly).
vi) DAR as Ex.PW1/F (colly).
______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 30/2020; Ankit Rastogi v. Ram Bahadur Singh & Anr. 4 of 29 Pages
vii) Copy of MCA Degree as Ex.PW1/G.
viii) Copy of PAN Card as Ex.PW1/H (OSR).
(b) PW2 Sh. Ashok Kumar, Senior Assistant (Record Keeper), Department of MRD, GTB Hospital, Delhi, produced the attested copy of the MLC of the petitioner Ankit Rastogi and proved the same as Ex.PW2/A (OSR).
(c) PW2 Nand Ram, Statistical Assistant, Medical Record Department, GTB Hospital, Delhi, produced the treatment record of the petitioner/ injured Ankit Rastogi and proved the same as Ex.PW2/B (colly).
(d) PW3 HC Lalit deposed to have reached the spot of the accident with the IO/ SI Subhash, who got lodged the FIR in the matter and seized the offending tractor bearing no. UP14DV-2038.
(e) PW4 Dharamveer Singh, Tax Assistant, Ward no. 34 (1), Income Tax Office, New Delhi, produced the fdisabilityollowing documents:
(i) Letter issued by Income Tax Office, New Delhi as Ex.PW4/A, vide which the witness was directed to produce the summoned record before this Tribunal.
(ii) Original letter of authorization as Ex.PW4/B.
(iii) Certified copy of the ITR of the petitioner/ injured Ankit Rastogi for the AY-2019-2020 as Ex.PW4/C.
(iv) ITR of the petitioner/ injured Ankit Rastogi for AY-2020-2021 as Ex.PW4/D.
(f) PW5 Dr. Shimpa Kundan, Senior Resident, Ophthalmology, GTB ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 30/2020; Ankit Rastogi v. Ram Bahadur Singh & Anr. 5 of 29 Pages Hospital, Delhi stated to have been authorized by HOD of Ophthalmology, GTB Hospital, Delhi, to depose in the matter.
PW5 deposed that the injured Ankit Rastogi has suffered 10% permanent visual disability in his right eye. PW5 relied upon the following documents:
(i) ID proof of Dr. Shimpa Kundan as Ex.PW5/A.
(ii) Disability Certificate of injured Ankit Rastogi as Ex.PW5/B.
(g) PW6 Dr. Anurag Jain, Senior Resident, Neurosurgery, GTB Hospital, Delhi deposed that the injured Ankit Rastogi has suffered 50% permanent neurosurgical disability. He relied upon the following documents:
(i) His ID proof as Ex.PW6/A.
(ii) Disability Certificate of injured Ankit Rastogi, which is already exhibited.
8. On the other hand, respondent no.2/ insurance company examined its Deputy Manager Sh. Rahul Kumar Sharma as R2W1, who deposed on the strength of his affidavit Ex.R2W1/A and relied upon the following documents:
(i) His authority letter as Ex.R2W1/1.
(ii) True copy of the insurance policy and policy wordings as Ex.R2W1/2 (colly.32 pages).
(iii) Notice u/o 12 rule 8 CPC for owner-cum-driver Mr. Ram Bahadur for producing Driving License, as Ex.R2W1/3 and original postal receipts with respect to sending the said notice, as Ex.R2W1/4.
(iv) True copy of tracking report as Ex.R2W1/5.
______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 30/2020; Ankit Rastogi v. Ram Bahadur Singh & Anr. 6 of 29 Pages
9. I heard the final arguments advanced by learned counsels for the parties and also perused the evidence and other materials placed on record. My findings on the issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1 Whether petitioner suffered injuries during the accident occurred on 13.07.2019 at about 11:00 p.m., at GTB Hospital Red Light, near Jyoti Nagar Flyover, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Nand Nagri, due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing no.
UP14DV-2038, being driven by respondent no.1/ driver? OPP
10. It is settled proposition of law that, in an action founded on the principle of fault liability, the proof of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is sine-qua-non. However, the standard of proof is not as strict as applied in criminal cases and evidence is to be tested on the touchstone of the preponderance of probabilities. A holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the Claim Petition based upon negligence. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal. However, that does not mean that a Tribunal which has been approached with a claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act should ignore all basic principles of law in determining the claim for compensation. The relevant provisions of the Act are not intended to jettison all principles of law relating to a claim for compensation, which is still based on a tortious liability. Reference may be made to the judgments titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sakshi Bhutani & Others., MAC APP. No. 550/2011 decided on 02.07.2012; Bimla Devi & Others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Others (2009) 13 SC 530; Parmeshwari v. Amirchand & Others 2011 (1) ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 30/2020; Ankit Rastogi v. Ram Bahadur Singh & Anr. 7 of 29 Pages SCR 1096; Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others 2018, Law Suit (SC) 303; & Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal & Ors., (2007) 5 SCC 428.
11. Now coming to the issue, it may noted that involvement of the offending vehicle is not in dispute in this case, as the driver/ respondent no.1 has not filed his written statement controverting any facts as stated in the DAR. Moreover, the offending vehicle was seized from the spot of the accident by the Investigating Officer on the very next day of the accident, which is 14.07.2019. The offending vehicle was mechanically inspected and as per the Mechanical Inspection Report, which is at page no.9 of the DAR, the headlight left-hand side as well as the right-hand side of the offending vehicle was broken. The left-hand side rear wheel of the offending vehicle was found to be punctured, which leads to the irresistible conclusion that the offending vehicle was, in fact, involved in the accident on 14.07.2019 in which the petitioner received injuries. The only aspect now which is to be decided by the Tribunal is whether the said accident was caused due to rash and negligence of the respondent no.1 or the petitioner had also contributed in the happening of the accident in any manner so that to be just and fair to the respondent no.1, the aspect of contributory negligence, if any, could also be decided.
12. The petitioner has examined himself as PW1. In the examination-in-
chief, which is by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A, the petitioner has deposed that at the time of the accident on 13.07.2019 at about 11:00 ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 30/2020; Ankit Rastogi v. Ram Bahadur Singh & Anr. 8 of 29 Pages p.m, the respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner at high speed in the wrong side and hit the petitioner from the front. The said fact that is found corroborated by the Site Plan which is at page 6 of the DAR [(Ex.PW1/F (colly)]. However, it may be noted that the Site Plan has been prepared by the Investigating Officer in a very unprofessional manner. There is no indication in the Site Plan as to what was the direction of the flow of the traffic and what is meant by 'X' and 'A' in the Site Plan and in which direction the petitioner was driving his motorcycle and from which direction the offending vehicle was coming. Such kind of unprofessionalism on the part of the police causes a lot of prejudice not only to the petitioner but also to the respondents and makes the task of the Tribunal to find out the truth onerous. Be that as it may. Prima-facie, from the Site Plan, it appears that on the road there was a divider indicating that the two vehicles were going in opposite directions, which correlates with the deposition of the petitioner regarding offending vehicle coming from the wrong side. In the absence of any plausible reason as to why the respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle in the wrong direction, which is absent in the present case as the respondent no.1, for the reason best known to him, has not contested the present claim petition/ DAR, driving of any vehicle in the wrong direction/wrong side of the road is a highly rash and negligent act, as if on a particular road only in one direction, the vehicles could move the driver of the vehicle who is following the rules would be under the bona-fide impression that no vehicle from the opposite side would be coming and therefore, if someone finds any vehicle coming from the wrong direction depending upon ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 30/2020; Ankit Rastogi v. Ram Bahadur Singh & Anr. 9 of 29 Pages the speed of the vehicle in the right direction, there would be very high chances of head-on collision and if any accident occurs in such a situation, then all the responsibility would be fastened on the shoulders of the person who was driving the vehicle in the wrong direction, which in the present case would be of respondent no.1.
13. Apart from above, the MLC, prepared at GTB Hospital, Delhi, which is part of the DAR, clearly reflects that the petitioner/ injured was brought to the hospital in injured condition with the history of RTA (Road Traffic Accident) and the injuries sustained by him were opined to be grievous in nature.
14. In view of the above, it is held that petitioner has been able to establish on the basis of the preponderance of probabilities that he had sustained grievous injuries in a motor vehicular accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by the respondent no.1. Issue no.1 is, accordingly, decided in favour of the petitioner.
ISSUE NO.2 Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
15. Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 enjoins the claim Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation, which appears to be just and reasonable. As per settled law, compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be a pittance. "Just compensation" cannot be ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 30/2020; Ankit Rastogi v. Ram Bahadur Singh & Anr. 10 of 29 Pages equated with bonanza but it suggests application of fair and equitable principles and reasonable approach of the Tribunal while awarding the compensation. This reasonableness must be on large peripheral field. A man is not compensated for the physical injury which he might have received in the accident caused by the motor vehicle in a public place, rather he is compensated for the loss, which he suffered as a result of that injury that he suffered in the accident. [Ref. Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 10 SCC 34; Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343; Puttamma v. K.L. Narayana Reddy, (2013) 15 SCC 45].
16. The scope of compensation in injury cases has been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Mr. R.D. Hattangadi v. M/S Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1995 AIR 755. Further, in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & another (2011) 1 SCC 343, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India laid down general principles for computation of compensation in injury cases.
17. In the light of the aforementioned judgments, the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled shall be as under:-
PECUNIARY DAMAGES :
Medical Expenses
18. The petitioner/ injured (PW1) has placed the medical bills on record with respect to his treatment for a total sum of Rs.73,538/- and proved the same as Ex.PW1/E (colly). All the bills are in original except few pharmacy bills and the same are found in order and further, the same has not been disputed on behalf of the insurance ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 30/2020; Ankit Rastogi v. Ram Bahadur Singh & Anr. 11 of 29 Pages company during cross-examination of PW1. Hence, a sum of Rs.73,538/- is granted to the petitioner under this head.
Loss of Earning During Treatment
19. The Discharge summary (Ex.PW1/D) shows that as a result of the accident, the injured Ankit Rastogi remained admitted in GTB Hospital from 14.07.2019 to 18.07.2019. He was diagnosed to have suffered "closed fracture tibial spine (right)" and "EDH 1.7 cm (right) T' region with pneumocephalus". No further treatment record after discharge from the hospital has been placed on record except the medical bills, however, considering the nature of injury it may be safely assumed that the petitioner must not have been able to do any work for at least three months from the date of accident and hence, petitioner is entitled to be compensated for loss of income of said period during treatment.
20. Though the petitioner (PW1) deposed that he is a qualified software engineer with professional qualification of MCA and was working as a freelance software engineer and was earning Rs.30,000/- to Rs.35,000/- per month. He has proved on record copy of his MCA degree as Ex.PW1/G. Further, PW4 Sh. Dharamveer Singh, Tax Assistant, Ward no. 34(1), Income Tax Office, New Delhi has placed on record certified copies of the ITRs filed by the petitioner Ankit Rastogi for AY 2019-20 (Ex.PW4/C) and AY 2020-21 (Ex.PW4/D). The accident happened on 13.07.2019 and therefore, the relevant ITR which pertains to the year prior to the accident, is the ITR of AY 2019-20, which shows the annual income of the petitioner as ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 30/2020; Ankit Rastogi v. Ram Bahadur Singh & Anr. 12 of 29 Pages Rs.2,49,560/- as income from business and profession and tax payable as 'zero' and accordingly, his monthly income comes to Rs.20,797/-. Even otherwise, being a resident of Delhi (as per his Aadhaar Card Ex.PW1/A) and being an MCA (as per degree of MCA Ex.PW1/G), if the income of the petitioner is taken as per minimum wages applicable to graduate category of workers of Delhi at the time of accident (14.07.2019), that comes to Rs.19,060/- per month, which is very near to his income of Rs.20,797/- per month, as shown in the ITR filed by him for AY 2019-20. Thus, income of the petitioner is ascertained as Rs.20,797/- per month. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.62,391/- (20,797x3) is granted to the petitioner on account of loss of income of three months' during treatment.
Loss of Future Earnings (due to disability)
21. In case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) 1 SCC 343, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India determined the broad criteria for assessment of permanent disability for ascertaining the purpose of future loss of earnings and also laid down a step-by-step procedure for assessment of disability and for ascertainment to the effect of permanent disability on the actual earning capacity. Relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced as under:-
"9. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and if so, the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence:
(i) Whether the disablement is permanent or
temporary;
(ii) If the disablement is permanent, whether it is ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 30/2020; Ankit Rastogi v. Ram Bahadur Singh & Anr. 13 of 29 Pages permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement; rejoined
(iii) If the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is the permanent disability suffered by the person.
If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity.
10. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The tribunal has to first ascertain what activities of the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) Whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood."
......If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 30/2020; Ankit Rastogi v. Ram Bahadur Singh & Anr. 14 of 29 Pages as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of 'loss of future earnings', if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand.
Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service but may not find suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore, be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case, there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earnings capacity taking note of the reduced earning capacity.
13. We may now summarize the principles discussed above:
(i). All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.
(ii). The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as a percentage of permanent disability).
(iii). The doctor who treated an injured- claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard to the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety.
(iv). The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of the profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors."
22. In the present case, as per disability certificate bearing no.
______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 30/2020; Ankit Rastogi v. Ram Bahadur Singh & Anr. 15 of 29 Pages 128/16/04/2021, dated 22.04.2021 (Ex.PW5/B), issued by the Medical Board of GTB Hospital, the petitioner was assessed to have suffered 65% permanent disability, which includes 50% permanent neurosurgical disability of brain, 26% cognitive impairment of brain and 10% visual disability of right eye.
23. PW6 Dr. Anurag Jain (Senior Resident, Neurosurgery, GTB Hospital, Delhi) has deposed that 50% permanent neurosurgical disability, which the petitioner has suffered will adversely affect his future prospects in personal and professional capacity and will hamper his normal day-to-day functioning. PW6 (Doctor) further opined that the victim will never be able to work as a Software Engineer for which he is otherwise technically and professionally qualified being an MCA and he is definitely rendered unfit for the same due to this disability. Doctor further stated that the victim is 100% disabled to undertake a clerical job also, if he is right-handed, since his right part of the body is rendered weak due to this disability.
24. PW5 Dr. Shimpa Kundan (Senior Resident, Ophthalmology, GTB Hsopital, Delhi) stated that it is correct that the victim has suffered 10% permanent visual disability in his right eye, which will adversely affect his future prospects in personal and professional capcacity and will hamper his normal day-to-day functioning. PW5 (Doctor) stated that if the victim ever tries to apply for a technical job in government, he will definitely be unfit for the same.
25. With respect to the permanent disability suffered by the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the disability ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 30/2020; Ankit Rastogi v. Ram Bahadur Singh & Anr. 16 of 29 Pages suffered by the petitioner has curtailed the petitioner's capacity to do work, as the petitioner also sustained mental injuries because of which the petitioner was unable to join his work and presently stands incapacitated for his line of work as software professional. Therefore, relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Selma Farheen & Ors., MAC Appeal no. 633 of 2012, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is 100% functionally disabled. It may be noted that nowhere in the examination-in-chief/ affidavit of evidence Ex.PW1/1, the petitioner has deposed that because of the permanent disability, he has suffered loss of income or is not able to earn anything. The deposition of the petitioner is that, "that the petitioner has suffered extreme pain and agony due to injuries sustained by him in this accident and has been severely impaired in executing his responsibilities as the soul earning member of the family." In Ex.PW1/A, the petitioner has claimed compensation for pain and suffering, for expenses incurred on treatment, for increased expenses of conveyance and expenses of extra diet, for loss, nervous shock, loss of pleasure of amenities of life, shortening of life, disfigurement, discomfort and inconvenience also besides other compensation according to law but has nowhere deposed that because of the permanent disability, the petitioner has suffered loss of income to what extent or if because of the accident and the consequent permanent disability, the petitioner is unemployed.
26. Before proceeding further, it may be noted that the reliance placed upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of the ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 30/2020; Ankit Rastogi v. Ram Bahadur Singh & Anr. 17 of 29 Pages Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Selma Farheen (supra) is misconceived, as the facts in the said case are different from the facts which are in the present case before the Tribunal. In Selma Farheen (supra) case, the injured, who was a student studying in second-year in St. Stephens College, did not have any income on the date of accident and was not filing Income-Tax Returns, whereas, in the present case, the petitioner/ injured is filing his income tax not only before the accident but even after the accident as well.
27. PW4 (Tax Assistant from Income Tax Office) has produced ITRs of the petitioner Ankit Rastogi for AY 2019-20 (Ex.PW4/C), which shows his annual income as Rs.2,49,560/-. PW4 also filed ITR of AY 2020-21 (Ex.PW4/D), which shows the annual income of the petitioner as Rs.3,65,850/- which is significantly on the higher side despite the accident of the petitioner in the said financial year and the said income has been shown to have been generated as the "income from business and profession", under Part B Gross Total Income at page no.2 of the ITR of AY 2020-21. The accident of the petitioner happened on 13.07.2019 which date comes within the AY 2021-21, which makes it clear that despite having sustained injuries in the accident, the petitioner was able to earn income for the year AY 2020-21. During final arguments, this Tribunal sought clarifications from learned counsel for the petitioner, who also could not point out anywhere in the document Ex.PW4/D i.e. the ITR of AY 2020-21 that the annual income of Rs.3,65,850/- as shown therein was not for the whole AY 2020-21 i.e. from 01.04.2019 till 31 March 2020 but was from 01.01.2019 till the date of accident (13.07.2019) only. ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 30/2020; Ankit Rastogi v. Ram Bahadur Singh & Anr. 18 of 29 Pages
28. In the circumstances, when the ITR of the petitioner for the succeeding year (AY 2020-21) shows the enhanced annual income (Rs.3,65,850/-) in comparison to the annual income (Rs.2,49,560/-) of the year (AY 2019-20) preceding the date of accident, it cannot be assumed that the disability, which the petitioner has suffered affected his income in any manner and therefore, functional disability of the petitioner is considered nil and no compensation is granted to the petitioner under this head.
Special Diet, Conveyance & Attendant Charges
29. Though the petitioner has not led any specific evidence in respect of the money spent by him towards special diet, transport expenses and attendant charges. As per discharge summary, for the treatment of injuries suffered in the accident, the petitioner remained hospitalized from 14.07.2019 to 18.07.2019. He was diagnosed to have suffered "closed fracture tibial spine (right)" and "EDH 1.7 cm (right) T' region with pneumocephalus". Considering the nature of injury and the period of treatment, an inference can be drawn that the petitioner had to spend a reasonable amount on high and rich protein diet for the purpose of early recovery as well as for visiting the hospital/ doctor during treatment. The petitioner is also required to be granted attendant charges to compensate the work/ job of his family members, which would definitely have suffered in providing assistance to him in his routine activities during treatment period (Refer : DTC & Ors Vs. Lalita, 1983 ACJ 253). Accordingly, the petitioner is awarded a total sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for special diet, conveyance and attendant charges.
______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 30/2020; Ankit Rastogi v. Ram Bahadur Singh & Anr. 19 of 29 Pages NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
Pain & Sufferings
30. While discussing the criteria to ascertain the compensation for pain and sufferings by victims of vehicular accident, observations of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Satya Narain v. Jai Kishan, FAO No:
709/02, date of decision: 02.02.2007 can be considered:
"12. On account of pain and suffering, suffice, would it be to note that it is difficult to measure pain and suffering in terms of money value. However, compensation which has to be paid must bear some objective co-relation with the pain and suffering.
13. The objective facts relatable to pain and suffering would be:
(a) Nature of injury.
(b) Body part affected
(c) Duration of the treatment."
31. In the instant case, as per treatment documents Ex.PW2/B, the petitioner was observed to have sustained abrasion of 3x2 cm over right great toe and multiple abrasions over right leg and as per X-Ray report, he was seen to have sustained a closed fracture of tibial spine (right), which resulted into 65% permanent disability as per disability certificate Ex.PW5/B. Thus, it is clear that due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the petitioner/ injured must have gone through immense pain and suffering during his treatment and therefore, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
Loss of Amenities
32. It is evident that even after completion of treatment, the petitioner suffered 65% permanent disability, which has been bifurcated as ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 30/2020; Ankit Rastogi v. Ram Bahadur Singh & Anr. 20 of 29 Pages 50% permanent neurosurgical disability of brain, 26% cognitive impairment of brain and 10% visual disability of right eye, as per disability certificate bearing no.128/16/04/2021, dated 22.04.2021 (Ex.PW5/B). PW6 Dr. Anurag Jain (Senior Resident, Neurosurgery, GTB Hospital, Delhi) has deposed that with the disability which the petitioner has suffered, he may not be able to lead a normal family life as a father or as a husband, as this impairment will disallow him to enjoy the bliss of his everyday life and execute his routine responsibilities. In view of this, it may be safely assumed that with the aforementioned disability, petitioner is bound to face difficulties throughout his life and will not be able to enjoy the amenities of life to the fullest. Hence, an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is granted to the petitioner under this head.
33. Thus, the compensation awarded to the petitioner is summarized as under:-
Sl. No. Head of compensation Amount
1. Medical Expenses Rs.73,538/-
2. Loss of Earnings (During Treatment) Rs.62,391/-
4. Special Diet, Conveyance & Attendant Charges Rs.1,00,000/-
5. Pain & Sufferings Rs.1,00,000/-
6. Loss of Amenities Rs.5,00,000/-
Total Rs.8,35,929/-
Accordingly, the compensation in this case comes to Rs.8,35,929/-, rounded off to Rs.8,36,000/-.
INTEREST
34. The petitioner shall also be entitled for interest @ 7% per annum on the award amount from the date of filing of petition till realization. ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 30/2020; Ankit Rastogi v. Ram Bahadur Singh & Anr. 21 of 29 Pages LIABILITY
35. R2W1 Sh. Rahul Kumar Sharma, Deputy Manager (Legal) of the insurance company, has deposed that as per the report of the Investigating Officer, the driver/ respondent no.1 was not holding a valid driving license at the time of the alleged accident and has been challaned under section 3/181 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1968 and driving a vehicle without valid driving license constitutes breach of policy terms and conditions and therefore, no liability can be fastened upon the insurance company. In support of his deposition, R2W1 has produced the copy of insurance policy as Ex.R2W1/2 (colly) and notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC sent to owner-cum- driver Ram Bahadur for producing his Driving License as Ex.R2W1/3 and postal receipts as Ex.R2W1/4, besides the tracking report as Ex.R2W1/5. In cross-examination of R2W1, conducted by learned counsel for respondent no.1, R2W1 was questioned that apart from serving the notice Ex.R2W1/3, what other efforts were made to obtain the driving license of respondent no.1, which question was replied in negative that no steps were taken, however, it is interesting to note here that no driving license of respondent no.1 was produced by learned counsel for the respondent no.1 even during cross- examination of R2W1 to disprove his deposition that respondent no.1 was not having a valid driving license at the time of accident, which could have been easily done, after all the proof of the document is the document itself produced for the inspection of the Court/Tribunal. If the respondent no. 1 had the driving license and did not produce it before the Tribunal at any point of time, an ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 30/2020; Ankit Rastogi v. Ram Bahadur Singh & Anr. 22 of 29 Pages adverse inference regarding the respondent no. 1 not having the driving license has to be drawn. And the said adverse inference gets fortified with the invocation of section 3/181 of MV Act against the respondent no. 1 in the charge-sheet filed by the Investigating Officer.
36. I have perused the insurance policy Ex.R3W1/2 which contains the Drivers Clause, which reads as "Persons or classes of person entitled to drive: Any person including the insured provided that a person driving holds an effective driving license at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license" . Since, no driving license of respondent no.1 has ever been produced on record during the entire enquiry proceedings, the deposition of R2W1 stands substantiated on record that respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle without holding a valid driving license. In view of the same, violation of the Drivers Clause of the insurance policy stands proved on record.
37. Hence, this Tribunal is of the view that in order to serve the ends of justice in the facts and circumstances of this case, respondent no.2/ insurance company should be directed to pay the compensation and thereafter, it should recover the same from the owner and driver. Accordingly, it is held that respondent no.2/ insurance company shall deposit the awarded amount with this Tribunal within 30 days from today and thereafter, it shall be entitled to get the paid amount recovered from respondent no.1, in accordance with law.
______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 30/2020; Ankit Rastogi v. Ram Bahadur Singh & Anr. 23 of 29 Pages RELIEF
38. In the light of the decision on substantive issues framed, the present claim petition is allowed and the following award is being passed:
AWARD
39. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.8,36,000/- (Rs. Eight Lakh Thirty-Six Thousand Only) to the petitioner along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization to be paid by the insurance company, which shall have the right to recover the paid amount from the respondent no.1, in accordance with law. The interim compensation, if any, shall be adjusted against this award amount along with the waiver of interest, if any, as directed by the Tribunal during the pendency of this case.
40. The insurance company/ respondent no.2 is directed to deposit the award amount in A/c no.20780110171912 (IFSC Code UCBA0002078), UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi, of PO MACT, Shahdara, through RTGS/ NEFT, within 30 days from today.
Disbursement of Award Amount :
41. It is directed that after compliance of the award, a sum of Rs.1,36,000/- along with the corresponding interest shall be forthwith released to the petitioner by way of transferring the said amount into his MACT Saving Bank Account and the rest of the award amount of Rs.7 Lakhs along with the corresponding interest shall be kept secured in the form of 40 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 40 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Hon'ble Delhi High ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 30/2020; Ankit Rastogi v. Ram Bahadur Singh & Anr. 24 of 29 Pages Court vide order dated 07.12.2018 in FAO No. 84/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Others v. Jaibir Singh & Others. The amount of FDRs on maturity would directly be released in petitioner's MACT Saving Bank Account.
Direction to the Petitioner & his Bank
42. The petitioner shall open a saving bank account near the place of his residence. Further, the bank of petitioner is directed to comply with the following conditions: -
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e., the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) 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 the bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) 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 card(s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 30/2020; Ankit Rastogi v. Ram Bahadur Singh & Anr. 25 of 29 Pages been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and the claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
43. As per Annexure-XIII of 'The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the relevant Form to be incorporated in the award is as under:
FORM -XVI SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident : 13.07.2019
2. Name of the injured : Ankit Rastogi
3. Age of the injured : 30 years (at the time of the accident)
4. Occupation of the injured : Software Engineer (MCA)
5. Income of the injured : Rs.20,797/- per month
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured : Hospitalization & OPD treatment
8. Period of hospitalization : 14.07.2019 to 18.07.2019
9. Whether any permanent disability? : 65% (If yes, give details)
10. Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs.73,538/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs.1,00,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant
(v) Cost of artificial limb Not applicable
(vi) Loss of earning capacity --
(vii) Loss of income (during treatment) Rs.62,391/-
(viii) Any other loss which may require Not applicable
any special treatment or aid to the
______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 30/2020; Ankit Rastogi v. Ram Bahadur Singh & Anr. 26 of 29 Pages injured for the rest of his life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and Rs.1,00,000/-
physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.5,00,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration Not applicable
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Not applicable
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, --
hardships, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress, dejectment
and unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning
capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and 65% permanent disability
nature of disability as permanent or
temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of As per column no. 12(iii) above
expectation of life span on account
of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning Zero
capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - Nil
(Income x% Earning Capacity x
Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.8,35,929/-
rounded off to Rs.8,36,000/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED @ 6%
16. Interest amount up to date of award Rs.2,60,135/-
(for 05 years, 02 months & 07 days)
17. Total amount including interest Rs.10,96,135/-
18. Award amount released Rs.1,36,000/- along with corresponding interest
19. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.7,00,000/- along with corresponding interest ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 30/2020; Ankit Rastogi v. Ram Bahadur Singh & Anr. 27 of 29 Pages
20. Mode of disbursements of the award Bank Transfer amount to the claimants(s).
21. Next Date for compliance of award. 13.05.2025 FORM - XVII COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD 1 Date of Accident 13.07.2019 2 Date of filing of Form-I- First Accident Report Not available (FAR) 3 Date of delivery of Form-II to the victim(s) Not available 4 Date of receipt of Form-III from the Driver Not available 5 Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Owner Not available 6 Date of filing of the Form-V- Interim Accident Not available Report (IAR) 7 Date of receipt of Form-VI- and Form-VIA Not available from the victims(s) 8 Date of filing of Form-VII- Detailed Accident Not available Report (DAR) 9 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on No the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the Designated Officer Not available by the Insurance Company 11 Whether the Designated Officer of the No Insurance Company submitted his report within thirty (30) days of the DAR?
12 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on No the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
13 Date of response of the claimant(s) to the offer Legal offer not filed of the Insurance Company 14 Date of Award 28.03.2025 ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 30/2020; Ankit Rastogi v. Ram Bahadur Singh & Anr. 28 of 29 Pages 15 Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open Yes saving bank account(s) near the place of residence?
16 Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open Yes saving bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PA861/-N Card and Aadhaar Card and the direction to the bank to not issue any cheque book/ debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook.
17 Date on which the claimant(s) produced the To be produced at the passbook of their saving bank account near the time of compliance of place of their residence along with the award endorsement, PAN Card and Aadhaar Card?
18 Permanent Residential Address of the A-31/152, Gali no.5,
claimant(s) Mata Mandir Marg,
Near Seth Bhagwan
Das School, Maujpur,
Delhi-110053.
19 Whether the claimant(s) saving bank account(s) Direction given
is near his place of residence?
20 Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the No
time of passing of the award to ascertain
his/her/ their financial condition?
44. With these observations, the claim petition/ DAR is disposed of. File be consigned to Record Room. VIJAY Digitally signed by VIJAY KUMAR KUMAR JHA Date: 2025.03.28 JHA 15:57:05 +0530 Announced in the open (VIJAY KUMAR JHA) Court on 28.03.2025 Presiding Officer-MACT-01 (Shahdara) Karkardooma, Delhi ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 30/2020; Ankit Rastogi v. Ram Bahadur Singh & Anr. 29 of 29 Pages