Delhi District Court
Bhupendra Kumar (Dar) vs Sandeep Singh (188/21, Nfc) on 18 February, 2026
:1:
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHARU GUPTA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-01 (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No:737/22
Bhupendra Kumar vs. Sandeep Singh & anr.
CNR No.DLSE01-008377-2022
1. Bhupendra Kumar
S/o Sh. Kunwar Pal Singh
R/o T-75, Mavi Mohalla,
Near ESI Hospital, Tehkhand, Okhla
Phas-I, New Delhi-110020
.....Petitioner
Versus
1. Sandeep Singh
S/o Sh. Prahlad Singh
R/o House no.1637B/14,
Govindpuri, New Delhi-110019
............Driver-cum-owner/Respondent no.1
2. Universal Sompo General Insurance co. Ltd. 3rd Floor, Vishal Bhawan, 95 Nehru Place, New Delhi.
............Insurance company/Respondent no.2 Date of accident : 03.06.2021 Result of accident : Grievous Injury (Disability) Date of filing of DAR : 02.09.2022 Date of Decision : 18.02.2026 MACT No.737/22 Bhupendra Kumar vs. Sandeep Singh & anr. P.No. 1 Of 21 ss :2: AWARD
1. The present Detailed Accident Report arises out of road accident that occurred on 03.06.2021, in which one Bhupendra Kumar (aged about 29 years) allegedly suffered grievous injury.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 03.06.2021, victim Bhupender Kumar, who worked as food delivery boy with Zomato was going from New Friends Colony towards Surya Hotel on his motorcycle bearing no.DL-3SDQ-4080. At 7 p.m, when he reached near New Friends Colony red light, Mathura Road and on green signal, was crossing the road, a WagonR taxi bearing no.DL-1RT-9809 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle), came at a high speed and hit the motorcycle of the petitioner. Petitioner sustained grievous injuries. On PCR call, ambulance arrived at the spot and victim was taken to AIIMS Trauma Centre for treatment.
3. An FIR no.0188/2021, dated 04.06.2021 was registered u/s 279,337 of IPC, PS-New Friends Colony. Matter was investigated and a chargesheet u/s 279/338 of IPC was filed before concerned criminal court while a DAR was filed before this Tribunal.
4. Respondent no.1 is the driver-cum-owner and respondent no.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle.
5. Respondent no.1 did not file any reply despite opportunity.
In its reply respondent no.3/insurance company has pleaded that the driving licence issued to respondent no.1 was only qua light motor vehicle (non-transport). It has been pleaded that since respondent no.1 was driving a taxi (passenger carrying commercial vehicle), he was driving in breach of the terms of the MACT No.737/22 Bhupendra Kumar vs. Sandeep Singh & anr. P.No. 2 Of 21 ss :3: insurance policy. It is further pleaded that even the victim was driving his vehicle without a licence and in violation of the traffic rules and as such, insurance company is not liable to compensate him.
6. Vide order dated 23.02.2024, following issues were framed.
1. Whether the injured suffered injuries in a road traffic accident on 03.06.2021 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no.DL-1RT-9809 being driven and owned by R1 and insured with R2?OPP.
2. Whether the injured is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
7. In order to prove his claim, petitioner/injured Bhupendra Kumar led evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW1/A. He deposed on the lines of the DAR. He stated that on 03.06.2021 after supplying the food order in New Friends Colony, he was going for supply another order by his motorcycle. When he reached NFC red light, Mathura Road from Surya Hotel at around 7 p.m.he started crossing the road as traffic signal was green. Meanwhile a WagonR car bearing no.DL-1RT-9809 came at a high speed and hit him. He sustained multiple injuries on his body and rushed to AIIMS Trauma Centre.
PW1 deposed that he is an ITI diploma holder in Electrician and before lockdown he was working as electrician in ICMR Research Center, Delhi. At the time of accident he was working as an electrician in private sector as freelancer apart from he was also working with Zomato for supplying food in MACT No.737/22 Bhupendra Kumar vs. Sandeep Singh & anr. P.No. 3 Of 21 ss :4: Delhi as a part time and earned Rs.20,000/- per month approximately.
PW-1 further deposed that he was admitted in JPN Apex Trauma Centre in emergency on 03.06.2021 and discharged on 11.06.2021 thereafter he was again admitted in Vedantaa Hospital, B-5 Central Green, B K Chawk Faridabad, Haryana on 09.06.2022 and discharged on 13.06.2022 where his left leg was operated. PW1 again admitted on 21.02.2023 in HAH Centenary Hospital (Majidia Hospital) Guru Ravidas Marg, Hamdard Nagar, New Delhi for his treatment and discharged on 16.03.2023. PW-1 was admitted in Vardhman Mahavir medical College and Safdarjung Hospital for operating his leg and admitted on 03.09.2024 after operating he was discharged on 10.09.2024.
PW-1 was relied upon his Adhar card as Ex.PW1/1, educational documents as Ex.PW1/2, Medical bills as Ex.PW1/3, medical bills as marked as Mark C, medical treatment documents including discharge summary as Ex.PW1/4, medical treatment documents are marked as Mark D, Fir and chargesheet as Ex.PW1/5, DAR as Ex.PW1/6, conveyance bills are marked as Mark A, copy of Zomato rider details are marked as Mark B. He was cross examined by learned counsel for insurance company.
No evidence was led by the respondents despite opportunity.
8. Final arguments were addressed by the parties. On the basis of material on record, evidence adduced and arguments addressed, issue wise findings are as under :
MACT No.737/22 Bhupendra Kumar vs. Sandeep Singh & anr. P.No. 4 Of 21 ss :5: Issue No. 1 Whether the injured suffered injuries in a road traffic accident on 03.06.2021 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no.DL-1RT-9809 being driven and owned by R1 and insured with R2?OPP.
9. Before proceeding to decide the above issue, it is apposite to note that as a settled principle of law, proceedings under The Motor Vehicle Act are not considered akin to the proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not applicable. Reliance is placed upon decision in Bimla Devi & ors. vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors. (2009) 13 SC 535, in Parmeshwari vs. Amir Chand & Ors., 2011 (1) SCR 1096 and National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pushpa Rana, 2009 ACJ 287, wherein it has been held that the negligence has to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view has to be taken.
10. In the present case, petitioner has testified as PW1 the factum and the manner of the accident. He has categorically deposed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by respondent no.1. These allegations have not been refuted by respondent no.1 by filing any written statement or reply. Despite adopting cross examination of respondent no.2/insurance company, occurrence of the accident or involvement of the offending vehicle has not been specifically denied. PW1 has elaborately claimed the manner of accident and stated that the offending vehicle had hit him from the right side. This allegation has not been denied by any suggestion.
Further the allegations are corroborated by the DAR and MACT No.737/22 Bhupendra Kumar vs. Sandeep Singh & anr. P.No. 5 Of 21 ss :6: chargesheet which affirms rash and negligence on the part of respondent no.1. The accident was reported without any inordinate delay. There is nothing in the investigation report to suggest that the petitioner had jumped the red light or was crossing without green signal on his side or was in any in defiance of the traffic laws. Respondent no.1 has led no evidence to explain his version of the accident. The mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle confirms damage on the front bumper, bonnet and front left side. This further corroborates the version of the petitioner as to manner of accident. The MLC of the victim also reveals accident involving a four wheeler. The offending vehicle was seized soon after the accident. The investigation carried out by the police renders a finding as to rash and negligence of respondent no.1. In National Insurance Co. vs. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 Delhi, it was laid down that completion of investigation and filing of chargesheet are sufficient proof of negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.
11. It may further be noted that in Cholamandalam Insurance Company vs. Kamlesh, 2009 (3) AD Delhi 310, it was held that if the driver of the offending vehicle does not enter the witness box, an adverse inference can be drawn against him. In the present case also, driver did not enter into the witness box to controvert the claim of petitioner or even to explain circumstances of accident.
12. In totality of circumstances and based on material on record, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner has been able to prove on the scales of preponderance of probabilities that MACT No.737/22 Bhupendra Kumar vs. Sandeep Singh & anr. P.No. 6 Of 21 ss :7: the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver/respondent no.1 on the date and time of accident. Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in favour of petitioner.
Issue no. 2 Whether the injured is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP.
13. Insurance company has raised a defence that the driving licence of respondent no.1 was only qua non-transport light motor vehicle while he was driving a commercial passenger vehicle. Such defence is untenable in as much as the respondent no.1 held a valid driving licence for driving LMV Commercial. Since, the vehicle was not being used as a transport vehicle and was valid from 06.12.2017 till 19.04.2031, there was no breach of the insurance policy and hence, insurance company is liable to compensate the petitioner.
14. As regards the quantum of compensation, this court is governed by the law laid down by Hon'le Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) 1 Supreme Court cases 343, Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. (2003) 6SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.(2017) 16 SCC 680. The gist of the law is that the object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or the Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture MACT No.737/22 Bhupendra Kumar vs. Sandeep Singh & anr. P.No. 7 Of 21 ss :8: 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.
15. Further it can be noted that the heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)
(iv) Damages 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).
MACT No.737/22 Bhupendra Kumar vs. Sandeep Singh & anr. P.No. 8 Of 21 ss :9: 15.1. In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). 15.2. It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii),
(v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.
15.3. Assessment of pecuniary damages under Item (i) and under Item (ii) (a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence.
15.4. Award under the head of future medical expenses--Item
(iii)--depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof.
15.5. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages--Items (iv), (v) and (vi)--involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. 15.6. Observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr. is quoted hereunder:
"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 the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a MACT No.737/22 Bhupendra Kumar vs. Sandeep Singh & anr. P.No. 9 Of 21 ss : 10 : result of the permanent ability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. 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 left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of `loss of future earnings', if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity. It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%), the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of MACT No.737/22 Bhupendra Kumar vs. Sandeep Singh & anr. P.No. 10 Of 21 ss : 11 : expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of compensation.
Pecuniary /Special Damages (i) Loss of earnings. Actual loss of earning:
16. As per the MLC and discharge summary, petitioner was diagnosed with closed ST fracture # left femur with no DNVD. The injury is thus regarded as grievous in nature. Petitioner remained hospitalized from 04.06.2021 to 11.06.2021, however continued to undergo treatment from Vedantaa Hospital, Faridabad. He underwent surgery and again got admitted in HAH Centenary Hospital from 21.02.2023 to 16.03.2023. The OPD receipt of Safdarjung Hospital showing registration date of 01.03.2024 reveals infection in the implant. Medical record reveals further admission on 03.09.2024 and discharged on 10.09.2024. The frequent hospitalization of petitioner and the several surgeries undergone by him suggests the severity of his medical condition and raises probability that the petitioner may have remained bedridden and incapable of working for atleast 3 years post the accident. In these circumstances, it is assumed that petitioner would have suffered a loss of income for atleast 3 years.
As regards income, petitioner has claimed to be working as a delivery boy with Zomato. He has also relied a certificate issued by Department of Training and Technical Education showing petitioner to have acquired skills of an electrician. Relying on the latter, he can be treated as a skilled worker and though no proof of income has been filed, his income has to be MACT No.737/22 Bhupendra Kumar vs. Sandeep Singh & anr. P.No. 11 Of 21 ss : 12 : assessed as minimum wages of skilled worker prevailing in Delhi. Same were Rs.19,291/- per month. His actual loss of income is taken as Rs.19,291X3(years)=Rs.6,94,476/-.
Accordingly, petitioner is entitled to compensation towards loss of income as Rs.6,94,476/-.
(i) Loss of future income/earnings:
17. In the present case, petitioner has relied upon disability certificate issued by Pt. Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital, noticing 68% disability in relation to left lower limb. He has proved to be a skilled electrician and working as a delivery boy in Zomato at the time of accident. Keeping in view the nature of employment, the functional disability of the petitioner is assessed as 40%.
Since the date of birth of the petitioner as per his Aadhar card, is 22.07.1995, his age at the time of accident on 03.06.2021 would have been 25 years and 10 months(i.e. not completed 26 years). He would thus fall in the age bracket of 21-25 years and for purpose of calculating loss of future income, a multiplier of 18 (as per Sarla Verma judgment), would be applicable in the case. 40% would be added as future prospect as Pranay Sethi judgment. Hence, compensation towards loss of future income is assessed as Rs.19,291/-(monthly income)X12(annual computation) X18(multiplier)+40% of total income(as future prospect)=Rs.58,33,598/-. (Functional disability)40% of this amount would be Rs.23,33,439/-. Hence so awarded.
(ii) Future Medical Expenses:
18. No proof of requirement of any future medical expenses has been filed or pleaded. No evidence has been led to show that MACT No.737/22 Bhupendra Kumar vs. Sandeep Singh & anr. P.No. 12 Of 21 ss : 13 : the disability has rendered the petitioner bedridden or completely dependent on an attendant for remainder of his life. As such, petitioner is not entitled to any future medical expenses.
(iii) Expenses relating to treatment:
19. Petitioner has filed list of medical bills amounting of Rs.4,53,841/- (this excludes the conveyance bills which have been separately awarded). Same have not been disputed by the respondents. Hence, so awarded.
Apart from expenditure on treatment, a sum of Rs.50,000/- under each head i.e. conveyance (inclusive of OLA bills filed on record) and special diet is granted to the petitioner. Rs.4,00,000/- is granted towards nursing attendant (keeping in view the period he was likely to have remained bedridden or atleast requiring services of an attendant).
20. In this background, considering the material and evidence on record and the law on compensation in such like cases, as already discussed above, compensation in the present case is calculated as under for injured:
Sl. Pecuniary loss : - Quantum
no.
1. (I) Expenditure on treatment : Rs.4,53,841/-
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance : Rs.50,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet : Rs.50,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing / attendant : Rs.4,00,000/-
(v) Loss of income:Rs.19,291/-X3 years Rs.6,94,476/-
(vi) Cost of artificial limbs (if Nil
applicable) :
(vii) Any other loss/expenditure : Future Nil
Medical expenses.
MACT No.737/22 Bhupendra Kumar vs. Sandeep Singh & anr. P.No. 13 Of 21 ss
: 14 :
2. Non-Pecuniary Loss :
(I) Compensation of mental and physical Rs.2,00,000/-
shock :
(ii) Pain and suffering : Rs.2,00,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life : Rs.1,00,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration : Nil
(v) Loss of marriage prospects : Nil
3. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity (I) Percentage of disability assessed and The petitioner nature of disability as permanent or has suffered temporary 68% disability in relation to left lower limb.
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of Already granted expectation of life span on account of disability :
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity Already granted in relation to disability:
(iv) Loss of future Income: Rs.23,33,439/-
Total Compensation Rs.44,81,756/-
Deduction, if any, Nil
Total Compensation Rs.44,81,756/-
Interest Simple interest
@7.5% p.a. from
the date of filing
of DAR till
actual realization
of Award
amount/
compensation.
MACT No.737/22 Bhupendra Kumar vs. Sandeep Singh & anr. P.No. 14 Of 21 ss
: 15 :
21. The total compensation payable to the petitioner/claimant would be Rs.44,81,756/- by insurance company with simple interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of DAR till its actual realization.
22. In case, the interest of petitioner was stopped or excluded during the present inquiry proceedings, same is liable to be adjusted from the total interest calculated on the Award amount.
Similarly, amount awarded and released as interim Award, if any, during pendency of the case, be deducted from the total compensation amount.
LIABILITY
23. As already decided, principal award amount/ compensation will be payable by insurance company with simple interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of DAR till actual realization.
Directions Regarding Deposit of Award Amount in Bank:
24. In compliance of directions issued vide order dated 16.11.2021 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition Civil No.534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India the award amount shall be deposited with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi by way of RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in account of MACT SAVING ACCOUNT No. 00000042706875094, IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir in the prescribed format i.e. MCOP Number on the file of (Claims Tribunal Name) Date of award, Compensation Amount, Income Tax Deduction at Source, Bank Transaction Reference No./Unique Transaction Reference (UTR) Number. In turn, the State Bank of India, Saket Courts Branch shall receive the MACT No.737/22 Bhupendra Kumar vs. Sandeep Singh & anr. P.No. 15 Of 21 ss : 16 : deposited sum and capture the above information and furnish a statement of account on a daily basis to the Nazir of this Tribunal to reconcile the deposits of compensation and the respective MCOPs towards which such deposits are made. On such deposits being made, the insurance company shall submit a letter to the Nazir of this Tribunal enclosing a copy of the said bank advice, in prescribed format as above, as per which the deposit made to the bank account of this Tribunal, to enable this Tribunal to keep tab on the deposits made and the MCOPs for which they were made. The Payment advice for remittance of compensation is as under:
PAYMENT ADVICE FOR REMITTANCE OF
COMPENSATION :
............ Bank ................... To:
............... Court ........................ We confirm remittance of compensation as follows on instructions of ................................... (insurance company):-
MCOP Number On the file of (Claims Tribunal Name), Place Date of award Amount Deposited, Income Tax Deduction at Source, if any Unique Transaction Reference (UTR) Number. Insurance company of offending vehicle, on deposit, shall also send a copy of the payment advice in above format to this Tribunal and serve a copy of the same on the claimants or their counsel as the case may be.
MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE' (MCTAP).
25. This court is in receipt of the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO MACT No.737/22 Bhupendra Kumar vs. Sandeep Singh & anr. P.No. 16 Of 21 ss : 17 : no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors whereby the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has formulated MACAD(Motor Accident Claims Annunity Deposit Scheme) which has been made effective from 01.01.2019. The said orders dated 07.12.2018 also mentions that 21 banks including State Bank of India is one of such banks which are to adhere to MACAD. The State Bank of India, Saket Courts, Delhi is directed to disburse the amount in accordance with MACAD formulated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
Apportionment:-
26. Another issue which is to be decided is out of such Award amount, how much is to be released at present and how much is to kept in the form of FDR for future financial used of the petitioner.
27. At this stage, it is relevant to the refer to the judgment of A. V. Padma & Ors. Vs., R. Venugopal & Ors. (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 378:
"......In the case of Susamma Thomas (supra), this Court issued certain guidelines in order to "safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries due to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptibility to exploitation".
Even as per the guidelines issued by this Court Court, long term fixed deposit of amount of compensation is mandatory only in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows. In the case of illiterate claimants, the Tribunal is allowed to consider the request for lumpsum payment for effecting purchase of any movable property such as agricultural implements, rickshaws etc. to earn a living. However, in such cases, the Tribunal shall make sure that the amount is actually spent for the MACT No.737/22 Bhupendra Kumar vs. Sandeep Singh & anr. P.No. 17 Of 21 ss : 18 : purpose and the demand is not a ruse to withdraw money. In the case of semi-illiterate claimants, the Tribunal should ordinarily invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit. But if the Tribunal is satisfied for reasons to be stated in writing that the whole or part of the amount is required for expanding an existing business or for purchasing some property for earning a livelihood, the Tribunal can release the whole or part of the amount of compensation to the claimant provided the Tribunal will ensure that the amount is invested for the purpose for which it is demanded and paid. In the case of literate persons, it is not mandatory to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit.
The expression used in guideline No. (iv) issued by this Court is that in the case of literate persons also the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in guideline No. (i), whereas in the guideline Nos.
(i), (ii), (iii) and (v), the expression used is that the Tribunal should. Moreover, in the case of literate persons, the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in guideline No. (i) only if, having regard to the age, fiscal background and strata of the society to which the claimant belongs and such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks that in the larger interest of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded, it is necessary to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit.
Thus, sufficient discretion has been given to the Tribunal not to insist on investment of the compensation amount in long term fixed deposit and to release even the whole amount in the case of literate persons. However, the Tribunals are often taking a very rigid stand and are mechanically ordering in almost all cases that the amount of compensation shall be invested in long term fixed deposit. They are taking such a rigid and MACT No.737/22 Bhupendra Kumar vs. Sandeep Singh & anr. P.No. 18 Of 21 ss : 19 : mechanical approach without understanding and appreciating the distinction drawn by this Court in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows and in the case of semiliterate and literate persons. It needs to be clarified that the above guidelines were issued by this Court only to safeguard the interests of the claimants, particularly the minors, illiterates and others whose amounts are sought to be withdrawn on some fictitious grounds. The guidelines were not to be understood to mean that the Tribunals were to take a rigid stand while considering an application seeking release of the money.
The guidelines cast a responsibility on the Tribunals to pass appropriate orders after examining each case on its own merits. However, it is seen that even in cases when there is no possibility or chance of the feed being frittered away by the beneficiary owing to ignorance, illiteracy or susceptibility to exploitation, investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit is directed by the Tribunals as a matter of course and in a routine manner, ignoring the object and the spirit of the guidelines issued by this Court and the genuine requirements of the claimants. Even in the case of literate persons, the Tribunals are automatically ordering investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit without recording that having regard to the age or fiscal background or the strata of the society to which the claimant belongs or such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks it necessary to direct such investment in the larger interests of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded to him.
The Tribunals very often dispose of the claimant's application for withdrawal of the amount of compensation in a mechanical manner and without proper application of mind. This has resulted in serious injustice and hardship to the claimants. The MACT No.737/22 Bhupendra Kumar vs. Sandeep Singh & anr. P.No. 19 Of 21 ss : 20 : Tribunals appear to think that in view of the guidelines issued by this Court, in every case the amount of compensation should be invested in long term fixed deposit and under no circumstances the Tribunal can release the entire amount of compensation to the claimant even if it is required by him. Hence a change of attitude and approach on the part of the Tribunals is necessary in the interest of justice..."
28. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and the abovesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble Supreme Court, out of the total award amount i.e. Rs.44,81,756/-, Rs.10,81,756/- be released to him and remaining Rs.34,00,000/- be kept in the form of monthly FDR of Rs.50,000/- alongwith simple interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of DAR till its actual realization, in his bank account near his place of residence.
29. In accordance with the orders dated 08.02.2019 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 in Rajesh Tyagi and others Vs. Jaibir Singh and others, Mr. Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager has been appointed as Nodal Officer of SBI having Phone no. 022-22741336/9414048606 and e-mail ID [email protected]. In case of any assistance or non compliance, the aforesaid Nodal Officer may be contacted to. A copy of this order be sent by e-mail to the aforesaid Nodal Officer of the aforesaid bank by the Ahlmad of the Court immediately in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble High Court as contained in the orders dated 07.12.2018. The Nodal Officer of the bank shall ensure the disbursement of the MACT No.737/22 Bhupendra Kumar vs. Sandeep Singh & anr. P.No. 20 Of 21 ss : 21 : award amount within three weeks of the receipt of the e-mail as mentioned in the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD.
1 Date of accident 03.06.2021 2 Name of injured Bhupendra Kumar 3 Age of the injured 25 years & 10 months 4 Occupation of the injured Assessed to be skilled worker of Delhi 5 Income of the injured as on Rs.19,291/-PM the date of accident 6 Nature injury Grievous/disability 7 Medical treatment taken by AIIMS, Raj Nagar, Hah Centenary the injured: Hospital, Vedantaa Hospital and Safdarjung Hospital.
8 Period of Hospitalization Approximate 3 months.
9 Whether any permanent 68% disability in relation to left
disability? lower limb
30. List for compliance on 25.03.2026.
Digitally
signed by
Announced in open Court Charu Charu gupta
Date:
gupta
On 18th February, 2026
2026.02.18
16:44:46
+0530
(Charu Gupta)
PO-MACT-01(South-East)
Saket Court/ New Delhi
MACT No.737/22 Bhupendra Kumar vs. Sandeep Singh & anr. P.No. 21 Of 21 ss