Delhi District Court
Gudiya vs Ashish Mishra on 12 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHILASH MALHOTRA
PRESIDING OFFICER: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-02 , PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:
GUDIYA Vs. ASHISH MISHRA & ORS.
DAR NO. 36/2021
Smt. Gudiya
W/o Sh. Ranjeet Kumar
R/o I-1144, Jahangir Puri,
North West, Delhi -110033 ...... Injured/claimant
Versus
1. Sh Ashish Mishra
S/o Sh. Shambhu Prasad Mishra
R/o H. No. 95-B, Pocket A-III,
Mayur Vihar Phase-III, New Delhi. .... Driver/
Respondent no.1
2. Sh. Shambhu Prasad Mishra
S/o Sh. Harihar Prasad
R/o H. No. 95-B, Pocket A-III,
Mayur Vihar Phase-III, New Delhi. .... Owner/
Respondent no.2
3. M/s Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.
E-8, RIICO Industrial Area,
Sita Pura, Jaipur Rajasthan.
....Insurance Company/Respondent no. 3
Date of accident 16.09.2020
Date of filing of DAR 04.02.2021
Date of framing of issues 22.12.2023
Date of concluding arguments 23.02.2026
Date of decision 12.03.2026
DAR No. 36/2021 Page. 1 of 45
Ms. Gudiya Vs Ashish Mishra & Ors
AWARD/JUDGMENT
Index to the Judgment
BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE CLAIMANT(s)................................................4
FRAMING OF ISSUES...................................................................................... 5 EVIDENCE LED BY THE PARTIES................................................................5 ARGUMENTS OF COUNSELS OF THE PARTIES.........................................8
1. ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO...................................10
(a) Issue No.1: Whether the petitioner suffered injuries in a vehicular accident that took place on 16.09.2020 at about 3:30 p.m at Ring Road Bhairon Road, Near Pragati Maidan, New Delhi involving a vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1CX-6437 (offending vehicle) being driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3?OPP.......................................................10 i. Presumption qua complicity upon filing chargesheet:...........................10 ii. Adverse inference qua driver:...............................................................12 iii. Preponderance of probabilities:...........................................................12 iv. Finding:................................................................................................ 14
(b) Issue No.2: Whether claimant is entitled to compensation, and to what amount?......................................................................................................... 14 i. Extent of disability:................................................................................14 ii. Principles qua assessment of compensation:........................................18 iii. Future prospects:.................................................................................23 iv. Expenditure on Treatment....................................................................26 v. Expenditure on Conveyance & Special Diet (Pecuniary):....................27 vi. Expenditure on Attendant (Pecuniary):...............................................27 vii. Cost of Artificial Limb:......................................................................28 i. Loss of earning capacity........................................................................28 DAR No. 36/2021 Page. 2 of 45 Ms. Gudiya Vs Ashish Mishra & Ors ii. Loss of Income (during the period of treatment):.................................28 iii. Any other loss which may require any special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life....................................................................29 iv. Loss of Future Earnings on account of permanent disability (Pecuniary):...............................................................................................29 Any other loss which may require any special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life....................................................................30 Loss of Future Income.............................................................................30 TOTAL.....................................................................................................30 Non-Pecuniary Heads.............................................................................. 31 v. Compensation for Mental & Physical shock, Pain & Suffering and Loss of amenities (Non-Pecuniary):..................................................................31 vi. Loss of Marriage Prospects (Non-Pecuniary):....................................32 vii. Disfiguration (Non-Pecuniary):..........................................................32 viii. Loss of earnings, inconvenience, hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress and unhappiness in future life etc. (Non- Pecuniary):................................................................................................ 33
(a) Issue No.3: Relief.....................................................................................34 i. Amount of Award:..................................................................................34 i. Rate of Interest:......................................................................................34 i. Deposit of Award:..................................................................................35 i. Disbursement of the award amount & protection thereof:....................37 LIABILITY.......................................................................................................39 SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES............................................................................................................... 40 COMPLIANCE QUA PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME...............................42 DAR No. 36/2021 Page. 3 of 45 Ms. Gudiya Vs Ashish Mishra & Ors BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE CLAIMANT(s)
1. In present case, FIR bearing no. 68/2020 was registered in PS Tilak Marg, Delhi on the complaint made by complaint Parshu Ram against driver / R-1 Sh. Ashish Mishra. A charge sheet was filed by the police against the driver / R-1 Sh. Ashish Mishra under Section 279/337/338 IPC, on the charges of rash driving of driver / R-1 Ashish Mishra. It is stated that on 16.09.2020 complainant along with his sister- in- law / claimant Ms. Gudiya were going from Mayur Vihar to Azadpur, Delhi on his bike bearing registration no. DL-8SBJ-8029. The bike was driven by Mr. Parsuram and Ms. Gudiya/ injured was pillion rider. When they reached at Bhairon Road, Ring Road T-point a car bearing registration no. DL-1CX-6437 driven in a high speed in rash manner, hit the motorcycle due to which they fell down and sustained injuries.
2. As per the DAR, the vehicle was driven by respondent no. 1 driver, owned by respondent no 2 and insured by respondent no. 3 Insurance company.
3. Respondent no. 1 and 2 initially put their appearances and vide order dated 22.12.2023 their right to file reply was closed. The Insurance Company filed its legal offer.
DAR No. 36/2021 Page. 4 of 45 Ms. Gudiya Vs Ashish Mishra & Ors
4. During the proceedings issues were framed on 22.12.2023 Thereafter the written submissions were filed by the claimant / petitioner in the prescribed format.
FRAMING OF ISSUES
5. Vide order dated 22.12.2023, following issues were framed by this Tribunal:-
"1. Whether the petitioner suffered injuries in a vehicular accident that took place on 16.09.2020 at about 3:30 p.m at Ring Road Bhairon Road, Near Pragati Maidan, New Delhi involving a vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1CX-6437 (offending vehicle) being driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3?OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief."
EVIDENCE LED BY THE PARTIES
6. In the proceedings conducted before the Tribunal, the following witnesses were examined, succinct testimonies whereof are as follows: PW1 Mr. Parsuram is the complainant and brother-in-law (Devar) of the claimant in this case. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW DAR No. 36/2021 Page. 5 of 45 Ms. Gudiya Vs Ashish Mishra & Ors 1/A. He proved on record copy of his Aadhar Card as Ex. PW 1/1; Copy of DAR as Ex. PW 1/ 2.
7. In his testimony PW-1 stated that on 16.09.2020 he along with his sister in law / claimant Ms. Gudiya were going from Mayur Vihar to Azadpur, Delhi on his bike bearing registration no. DL-8SBJ-8029. The bike was driven by him and Ms. Gudiya was pillion rider. He stated that when they reached at Bhairon Road, Ring Road T-point a car bearing registration no. DL-1CX-6437 driven in a high speed in rash manner, hit the motorcycle due to which they fell down and sustained injuries.
8. He stated that in respect of his claim a case bearing DAR No. 38/2021 was registered which was settled by the Insurance Company and compensation was paid to him.
9. In his cross examination he reiterated that accident had occurred due to rash driving on the part of offending / insured vehicle.
10.PW2 is injured Ms. Gudiya. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW 2/A. She proved on record the following documents viz., Medical treatment documents are Ex. PW 2/1 (Colly); Medical bills are Ex. PW 2/2 (Colly); Disability Certificate is Ex. PW 2/3; Copy of Aadhar Card is Ex. PW 2/4; Copies of Aadhar card of husband of claimant and of children are Ex. PW 2/5 (Colly); Copy of salary slip of claimant is Ex. PW 2/6; Copy of DAR is already Ex. PW 1/6.
DAR No. 36/2021 Page. 6 of 45 Ms. Gudiya Vs Ashish Mishra & Ors
11.In her testimony she reiterated the fact that the accident had occurred due to rash driving of vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1CX-6437 which had hit their motorcycle on which she was a pillion rider.
12.She stated that due to injuries she suffered 72% permanent disability as assessed by the Medical Board of Dr. RML Hospital. She stated that she suffered injuries on her head due to which she is not able to speak property, not able to stand without support and not able to attend nature calls without support. She stated that she is suffering from paralysis and not improving despite lapse of three and half years from the date of accident and there is no possibility to recover the same.
13.She stated that she is 40 years of old and was working as helper with M/s Jolly Engineering Works located at GTK Karnal Road, Delhi and was earning Rs. 14,842/- per month. She stated that due to the injuries sustained in the accident, she could not attend her work.
14.In her cross examination she stated that she is 5 th standard pass and she cannot read and write English. She submitted that she is suffering from paralysis and placed on record medical documents in this regard. She admitted that her husband Mr. Ranjeet Kumar is working as Security Guard.
15.PW-3 is Dr. Satyam from Department of Clinical Psychology, Atal Bihari Vajpayee Institute of Medical Sciences, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi. He submits that he is a DAR No. 36/2021 Page. 7 of 45 Ms. Gudiya Vs Ashish Mishra & Ors summoned witness. He proved on record Disability Certificate of injured Gudiya W/o Sh. Ranjeet Kumar vide File No. Addl. M.S.(ND)/CMB-138/2022/RMLH dated 16.08.2023 and the same is Ex. PW 2/2. The witness stated that as per disability certificate, injured Gudiya had head injury suffered from psychological disability as 50% and locomotor disability due to stability component as 50% and total disability will be 72% and the disability is permanent in nature. Copy of test report of Neuro Psychological is Ex. PW3/1.
16.In his cross examination, the witness stated that he has been part of disability board constituted by Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital. He admitted that the report suggest total dis- function rating is 34. Witness denied the suggestions that injured Gudiya had suffered temporary disability with respect to psychological aspect. He also denied the suggestion that disability will disappear by the time.
17. No evidence was led by the respondents.
ARGUMENTS OF COUNSELS OF THE PARTIES
18.Ld. Counsel for the claimant contended that the accident occurred due to the wanton negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. He submitted that the factum of filing of charge sheet itself establishes negligence on the part of the driver.
DAR No. 36/2021 Page. 8 of 45 Ms. Gudiya Vs Ashish Mishra & Ors
19.He submitted that the respondent no. 1 and 2 did not participate in the proceedings and their right to file the reply was closed by order dated 22.12.2023. He submits that no evidence was led by R-1, R-2 and R-3 to rebut the factum of rash driving on the part of driver of insured vehicle.
20.He submitted that the appellant was working as a helper with M/s Jolly Engineering Works located at GTK Karnal Road, Delhi and was earning Rs.14,842/- per month and the Pay Slip is also filed on record.
21.He submitted that injured Gudiya received head injury and suffered psychological disability as 50% and locomotor disability due to stability component as 50% and total disability is 72% and the disability is permanent in nature. He submitted that the injured is bed ridden and not even able to perform nature calls on her own and suffering from 100% functional disability. He submitted that PW-3 Dr. Satyam in his testimony also stated that disability is not going to be disappear by time and is permanent in nature.
22.No one appeared for R-1 and R-2 to address arguments.
23. Ld. counsel for the Insurance Company did not dispute the factum of rash driving on the part of driver of insured vehicle. It is argued that the disability certificate do not mention that the total assessed disability of 72% is permanent in nature and functional disability cannot be assessed on its basis. It is also argued that the claimant has failed to summon the employer DAR No. 36/2021 Page. 9 of 45 Ms. Gudiya Vs Ashish Mishra & Ors to prove the salary and minimum wages for unskilled person be considered.
ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO
24. Issue No.1: Whether the petitioner suffered injuries in a vehicular accident that took place on 16.09.2020 at about 3:30 p.m at Ring Road Bhairon Road, Near Pragati Maidan, New Delhi involving a vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1CX-6437 (offending vehicle) being driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3?OPP i. Presumption qua complicity upon filing chargesheet:
25. Rule 21 of Annexure XIII of The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 mandates as follows:-
21. Claims Tribunal shall treat Dar as a claim petition for compensation under Sub-Section (4) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (1) The Claims Tribunal shall treat the DAR filed by the Investigating Officer as a claim petition under Section (4) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. However, where the Investigating Officer is unable to produce the claimant(s) on the first date of hearing the Claims Tribunal shall register the DAR as a claim petition after the appearance of the claimant(s).
(2) where the claimant(s) have filed a separate claim petition, the DAR may be tagged along with the claim petition.
(3) If the Report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2) of 1974 has not been filed at the time of filing of the DAR, the Claims Tribunal may either wait till filing of the Report under Section 173 of the said Code of Criminal Procedure or record the statement of the eye witness(es) to satisfy itself with respect to the negligence before passing the award.
(4) The Claims Tribunal shall register the FAR as a Miscellaneous application and the IAR as well as DAR DAR No. 36/2021 Page. 10 of 45 Ms. Gudiya Vs Ashish Mishra & Ors shall be taken on record in the same Miscellaneous application.
26. In Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Meera Devi & Ors decided on 16.02.2021, 2021 LawSuit (Del) 858 it was held :
8. ..... In view of Delhi Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rules, 2008, contents of DAR had to be presumed to be correct and read in evidence without formal proof of the same unless proof to the contrary was produced........".
27. In a recent order dated 25.02.2025, passed in Ranjeet & Anr v Abdul Nayem Keb & Anr in SLP (c) 10351/2019, it was held in trenchant terms as thus:
"It is settled in law that once a charge sheet has been filed and the driver has been held negligent, no further evidence is required to prove that the bus was being negligently driven by the bus driver. Even if the eyewitnesses are not examined, that will not be fatal to prove the death of the deceased due to negligence of the bus driver."
28.In the present case, not only the FIR was registered but charge sheet was filed qua respondent no 1 driver u/s 279/337/338 IPC in the Court.
29.PW-1 Mr. Parsuram and PW-2 Ms. Gudiya were the eye witnesses of the accident. PW-1 was the driver of bike and PW-2 was pillion rider. Both of them remained consistent in their testimonies that the accident had occurred due to rash driving by driver of insured vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1CX-6437. During the final arguments, the Insurance DAR No. 36/2021 Page. 11 of 45 Ms. Gudiya Vs Ashish Mishra & Ors Company did not dispute the factum of rash driving. The charge sheet also points out the rash driving on part of R-1/ driver. R-1 and R-2 failed to lead any evidence to rebut the said fact.
30.Accordingly, it is clear from the record that the accident had occurred due to rash driving by the driver of insured vehicle bearing registration number DL-1CX-6437.
ii. Adverse inference qua driver:
31. The driver of the offending vehicle steered clear of the witness box and did not lead any controvertible evidence to negate or refute the allegations of rash and negligent driving. It may further be noted that in Cholamandlam insurance company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh 2009 (3) AD Delhi 310, it was held that if driver of offending vehicle does not enter the witness box, an adverse inference can be drawn against him. In the present case also, since the driver exercised his volition to not enter into the witness box to controvert the claim of petitioner or even to explain circumstances of accident, an adverse inference ought to be drawn against him.
iii. Preponderance of probabilities:
32.It is trite law that in a proceeding before the Claims Tribunal, the claimant does not have to establish negligence on the part of the driver respondent beyond reasonable doubt. The DAR No. 36/2021 Page. 12 of 45 Ms. Gudiya Vs Ashish Mishra & Ors standards of establishing negligence is predicated on preponderance of probabilities. In the present case too, negligence has been established on this principle.
33. In this context, it would be useful to peruse Mathew Alexander v. Mohd. Shafi, (2023) 13 SCC 510 wherein it was observed as thus:
"In this context, we could refer to the judgments of this Court in N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal [N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal, (1980) 3 SCC 457 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 774] , wherein the plea that the criminal case had ended in acquittal and that, therefore, the civil suit must follow suit, was rejected. It was observed that culpable rashness under Section 304-
AIPC is more drastic than negligence under the law of torts to create liability. Similarly, in Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC [Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC, (2009) 13 SCC 530 :
(2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 189 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1101] ("Bimla Devi"), it was observed that in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal has to determine the amount of fair compensation to be granted in the event an accident has taken place by reason of negligence of a driver of a motor vehicle. A holistic view of the evidence has to be taken into consideration by the Tribunal and strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner need not be established by the claimants. The claimants have to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering the petition seeking compensation on account of death or injury in a road traffic accident. To the same effect is the observation made by this Court in Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz [Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646 :
(2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 73 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 13] which has referred to the aforesaid judgment in Bimla Devi [Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC (2009) 13 SCC 530."
DAR No. 36/2021 Page. 13 of 45 Ms. Gudiya Vs Ashish Mishra & Ors iv. Finding:
34. In view of foregoing discussion, it stands proved on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities that the aforesaid accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1C-
X-6437 and the said vehicle at that time was driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured by respondent no.3. Hence, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the claimant and against the respondents.
(b) Issue No.2: Whether claimant is entitled to compensation, and to what amount?
i. Extent of disability:
35.A perusal of Ex. PW 2/3 viz. Report of the Medical Board of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital shows that injured Gudiya received head injury and suffered from psychological disability as 50% and locomotor disability due to stability component as 50% and total disability as 72%.
36.It is argued by the Insurance company that the said report did not mention that the total disability of 72% is permanent in nature. A perusal of said certificate shows that it nowhere mentions that the assessment was regarding the temporary disability. PW-3 Dr. Satyam in his testimony stated that he was part of the assessment board. He clarified that the DAR No. 36/2021 Page. 14 of 45 Ms. Gudiya Vs Ashish Mishra & Ors disability assessed was permanent in nature. He also denied that suggestions that the disability is temporary and will disappear with time.
37.From the testimony of PW-3 Dr. Satyam it is amply clear that the disability suffered by the injured is permanent in nature and there is no ambiguity in the assessment report of the Medical Board.
38. Before proceeding further to analyze the aspect of functional disability, it would be prudent to refer to the case law laid down by the higher Courts. It is trite that the test to determine the functional disability has been laid down in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343 as thus:
"Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity."
39. It would be apposite to peruse the following directions for assessment of functional disability as laid down vide order dated 09.03.2018 in Rajesh Tyagi & Ors Vs. Jaiveer Singh & Ors, FAO No. 842/2003 dated 09.03.2018 as thus:
6. Directions for assessment of functional disability by the Claims Tribunal "6.1. All injuries or permanent disability arising from injuries do not result in loss of earning capacity.
6.2. The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person DAR No. 36/2021 Page. 15 of 45 Ms. Gudiya Vs Ashish Mishra & Ors should not be mechanically assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability).
6.3. The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence of his medical opinion with regard to the extent of permanent disability. However, the loss of earning capacity is something to be assessed by the Claims Tribunal with reference to the evidence in its entirety.
6.4. The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors.
6.5. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps:
(i) The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life).
(ii) The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age.
(iii) The third step is to find out whether :
a) The claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or
b) 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
c) Whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or DAR No. 36/2021 Page. 16 of 45 Ms. Gudiya Vs Ashish Mishra & Ors lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. "
40. In Sarnam Singh Vs. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 3900/2023 dated 04.07.2023 (SC), 2023 INSC 597 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further elucidated upon the concept of functional disability as follows:
"9. As to how compensation, in case where permanent disability of an injured affects his functional disability, is to be assessed has been considered by this Court, repeatedly. Reference can be made to the judgment of this court in Mohan Soni vs Ram Avtar Tomar and Others. In the aforesaid case the injured was working as a cart puller. As a result of the accident, his left leg was amputated. His permanent disability was assessed at 60%. The Tribunal assessed the compensation taking the loss of earning at 50% on the theory that he can still do some other work while sitting. The High Court did not disturb the finding regarding loss of the income on account of disability. This Court found that the Tribunal was in error in taking the loss of earning at 50% as the injured was 55 years of age and it may be difficult for him to find a job at that stage. In fact, any physical disability resulting from an accident has to be judged with reference to the nature of the work being performed by the person who suffered disability. The same injury sufferd by two different persons may affect them in different ways. Loss of leg by a farmer or a rickshaw puller may be end of the road as far as his earning capacity is concerned. Whereas, in case of the persons engaged in some kind of desk work in office, loss of leg may have lesser effect. This Court enhanced the loss of earning capacity from 50% to 90%."
DAR No. 36/2021 Page. 17 of 45 Ms. Gudiya Vs Ashish Mishra & Ors
41.PW-1 in her testimony stated that she was working as a helper with M/s Jolly Engineering Works. She stated that due to the grievous injuries suffered by her especially on head, she is not able to speak properly, stand on her foot without support of other person and not able to do natural calls without support. She stated that she has suffered from paralysis which is not improving despite a lapse of three and half yeas from the date of accident. PW-3 Dr. Satyam in his testimony also stated that the disability is not going to disappear by time. The claimant has placed on record the medical prescriptions. The medical prescription dated 01.11.2021 records the prescription for use of dyper which shows the condition of the petitioner.
42. From the aforesaid medical record, it is amply clear that in such a medical condition when petitioner is not able to stand, walk and attend natural call on her own, she will not be able to perform the work she is already doing and thus suffers from 100% functional disability.
ii. Principles qua assessment of compensation:
43.Before adverting to the submissions of the counsels in this regard, it would be apposite to refer to the law of the land qua this aspect. The law has been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) 1 SCC 343, Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. (2003) 6SCC 121 and National Insurance Company DAR No. 36/2021 Page. 18 of 45 Ms. Gudiya Vs Ashish Mishra & Ors 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 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.
44. In Raj Kumar v Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) 1 SCC 343 the heads under which compensation is to be calculated was expounded as thus :
"5.The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act", for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or the Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration DAR No. 36/2021 Page. 19 of 45 Ms. Gudiya Vs Ashish Mishra & Ors 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. Subramania Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair [(1969) 3 SCC 64 : AIR 1970 SC 376] , R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. [(1995) 1 SCC 551 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 250] and Baker v. Willoughby [1970 AC 467 : (1970) 2 WLR 50 : (1969) 3 All ER 1528 (HL)] .]"
"6.The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) DAR No. 36/2021 Page. 20 of 45 Ms. Gudiya Vs Ashish Mishra & Ors
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii),
(v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life."
45.The claimant filed prescribed of the Scheme for Motor Accident Claims qua the above heads pertaining to pecuniary and non pecuniary damages.
46. Though the judgment of Raj Kumar (supra) deals with cases of fatality, it is no longer res integra that the above principles apply to cases of injury also. Recourse can be had to Yadava Kumar v National Insurance Co Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC 341 wherein it has been ordained as thus:
"9.The Second Schedule under Section 163- A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 gives a structured formula for the calculation of compensation in accident cases. Note 5 of the Schedule deals with disability in non- fatal accidents and reads as follows:
5. Disability in non-fatal accidents DAR No. 36/2021 Page. 21 of 45 Ms. Gudiya Vs Ashish Mishra & Ors The following compensation shall be payable in case of disability to the victim arising out of non-fatal accidents:
Loss of income, if any, for actual period of disablement not exceeding fifty-two weeks. PLUS either of the following--
(a) In case of permanent total disablement the amount payable shall be arrived at by multiplying the annual loss of income by the multiplier applicable to the age on the date of determining the compensation, or
(b) In case of permanent partial disablement such percentage of compensation which would have been payable in the case of permanent total disablement as specified under Item (a) above.
Injuries deemed to result in permanent total disablement/permanent partial disablement and percentage of loss of earning capacity shall be as per Schedule I under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923."
Thus, the multiplier method is to be applied in cases of injuries also and it has been applied in a number of accident cases by the High Courts and this Court.
10. This Court in Sunil Kumar v. Ram Singh Gaud [(2007) 14 SCC 61 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 771 : (2008) 1 ACJ 9] , awarded compensation in case of injury for loss of future earnings and applied the multiplier method for calculation of the same. The same principle was recognised by this Court in Priya Vasant Kalgutkar v. Murad Shaikh [(2009) 15 SCC 54 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 266 : AIR 2010 SC 40]"
47. An essential ingredient of the award is the loss of the future earnings. To calculate the same, the multiplier method is used in terms of the mandate of Sarla Verma (supra) wherein it was laid down as thus:
DAR No. 36/2021 Page. 22 of 45 Ms. Gudiya Vs Ashish Mishra & Ors "42 We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie) which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years,) reduced by one unit for every years that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years , M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M -13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51-55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years ,M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M- 5 for 66 to 70 years."
48.The assessment of pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary damages is discussed in the succeeding paragraphs.
iii. Future prospects:
49.The injury sustained by the claimant has a bearing on his future prospects to eke out a living in the same manner as he would have prior to the accident. To factor into account future prospects, several guidelines have been laid down.
50. In this context, it would be apt to refer to National Insurance Co Ltd v Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 wherein it was laid down as thus:
"59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:
59.3 While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased DAR No. 36/2021 Page. 23 of 45 Ms. Gudiya Vs Ashish Mishra & Ors was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
59.4 In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. 59.5 For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paras 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
59.6 The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] read with para 42 of that judgment 59.7 The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. 59.8 Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years."
51. Even though the above judgment deals with cases of fatality, it is no longer res integra that the above principles apply to cases of injury also. Reliance is placed on Pappu De Deo DAR No. 36/2021 Page. 24 of 45 Ms. Gudiya Vs Ashish Mishra & Ors Yadav v. Naresh Kumar, (2022) 13 SCC 790 wherein it was held as follows:
"7 Two questions arise for consideration : one, whether in cases of permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor accident, the claimant can seek, apart from compensation for future loss of income, amounts for future prospects too; and two, the extent of disability. On the first question, the High Court no doubt, is technically correct in holding that Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] involved assessment of compensation in a case where the victim died. However, it went wrong in saying that later, the three-Judge Bench decision in Jagdish [Jagdish v. Mohan, (2018) 4 SCC 571 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 102 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 572] was not binding, but rather that the subsequent decision in Anant [Anant v. Pratap, (2018) 9 SCC 450 :
(2018) 4 SCC (Civ) 378 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 756] to the extent that it did not award compensation for future prospects, was binding. This Court is of the opinion that there was no justification for the High Court to have read the previous rulings of this Court, to exclude the possibility of compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement. Such a narrow reading of Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] is illogical, because it denies altogether the possibility of the living victim progressing further in life in accident cases -- and admits such possibility of future prospects, in case of the victim's death."
DAR No. 36/2021 Page. 25 of 45 Ms. Gudiya Vs Ashish Mishra & Ors
52.As per the Aadhar card of injured filed on record the date of birth of injured Gudiya is 01.01.1980. The date of accident is 16.09.2020. On the date of accident, the injured was 40 years and 08 months old. The injured was working as a helper in Jolly Engineering works and was earning a salary of Rs.14,842/-. She has proved on record her pay slip which has remained unrebutted. Mere fact that the employer was not called to prove the employment record does not belie this documentary evidence in the absence of any concrete evidence led by the insurance company. Accordingly, the future prospects are hereby determined as 25% i.e. Rs. 3,710/-
PECUNIARY LOSS iv. Expenditure on Treatment
53.Ld Counsel for claimant contended that Rs.5,00,000/- were spent on medical expenses. During the arguments, the Insurance company objected to the same as no documentary proof regarding the expenses is placed on record. It is argued that the treatment of the petitioner had taken place in a govt. hospital and the claim is inflated.
54. Ld. counsel for the petitioner concedes that same and submitted that bills filed on record are only for a sum of Rs.6,327/-. During the arguments Ld. counsel for petitioner conceded that they have claimed for said amount on the basis DAR No. 36/2021 Page. 26 of 45 Ms. Gudiya Vs Ashish Mishra & Ors of approximation and actual amount as per bills may be provided. Accordingly, the expenditure on medical treatment is hereby quantified as Rs.6,327/-
v. Expenditure on Conveyance & Special Diet (Pecuniary):
55.Ld. Counsel for claimant claimed a sum of Rs.2,36,576 towards Conveyance and Special Diet. The Insurance company has opposed the same.
56. Record shows that the treatment of the petitioner had taken place at Dr. RML hospital and petitioner was residing in Jahangir Puri, Delhi. The petitioner had to travel a considerable distance for her treatment. The petitioner has suffered serious injuries and must be requiring special diet. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid, the expenditure on conveyance and Special Diet is hereby quantified as Rs. 1,00,000/- (each) i.e. 2,00,000/- in aggregate.
vi. Expenditure on Attendant (Pecuniary):
57.Ld. Counsel for claimant contended that Rs.10,000/- per month is required to be compensated for a period of 25 years as per the life expediency of the injured. Ld. Counsel for the Insurance company opposed the same.
58. As per the medical evidence on record, the injured suffered head injures due to which she is not able to stand, walk and perform nature calls without any assistance. PW-3 Dr. Satyam DAR No. 36/2021 Page. 27 of 45 Ms. Gudiya Vs Ashish Mishra & Ors confirmed that the disability is not likely to disappear. In such circumstances it is clear that attendant will be required by the claimant during her life time. The petitioner has claimed Rs.10,000/- per month which is much lesser then the minimum wages for a unskilled labour prevalent on the date of accident. The multiplier applicable to the injured is 15. Accordingly, the expenditure towards pre-nursing attendant is quantified as Rs.10,000 x 12 x 15= Rs.18,00,000/-.
vii. Cost of Artificial Limb:
59. No claim is made under this head.
i. Loss of earning capacity
60. As discussed above the the loss of his earning capacity is hereby quantified at 100%.
ii. Loss of Income (during the period of treatment):
61. The injured has remained under continuous treatment and was not able to join her job after the accident. The compensation under this head is being considered along with the loss of future income.
DAR No. 36/2021 Page. 28 of 45 Ms. Gudiya Vs Ashish Mishra & Ors \ iii. Any other loss which may require any special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life
62. A compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- is claimed under this head but no justification is provided by the injured /petitioner and accordingly the same is declined.
iv. Loss of Future Earnings on account of permanent disability (Pecuniary):
63.PW-2 Gudiya has placed on record her pay slip which shows that she was working with M/s Jolly Engineering Works and was earning Rs.14,842/- per month. It is already observed above, that the aforesaid pay slip remained unrebutted and stands proved on record. The injured was 40 years and 08 months on the date of accident and the multiplier applicable to her case is 15.
64.The future income of the injured has been calculated as Rs.3,710/- per month (25 % of salary). Therefore, the total per month loss of income of the injured was Rs.18,552/- (14,842 + 3,710 ). The yearly loss of income is Rs.2,22,624/- and when multiplied with multiplier of 15, the loss of future income comes to Rs.33,39,360/-.
65.Thus, the total amount awarded under Pecuniary damages is:
DAR No. 36/2021 Page. 29 of 45
Ms. Gudiya Vs Ashish Mishra & Ors
Sr. No. Heads Amount
1. Expenditure on treatment 6,327/-
2. Expenditure on Conveyance 1,00,000/-
3. Expenditure on Special Diet 1,00,000/-
4. Expenditure on Attendant 18,00,000/-
5. Cost of Artificial Limb NIL
6. Loss of earning during 100%
period of treatment
7. NIL
Any other loss which may
require any special
treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his
life
8. 33,39,360/-
Loss of Future Income &
loss of income
Rs. 53,45,687/-
TOTAL
DAR No. 36/2021 Page. 30 of 45
Ms. Gudiya Vs Ashish Mishra & Ors
Non-Pecuniary Heads
v. Compensation for Mental & Physical shock, Pain & Suffering
and Loss of amenities (Non-Pecuniary):
66.As stated above, the claimant had suffered grievous injuries and permanent disability in the accident. This Tribunal is conscious of the fact that no amount of money can erase the trauma and grief that the victim has suffered, or the dignity and confidence that was shattered. No amount of money can compensate the agony that the victim has undergone, but it is hoped that some compensation can go a long way in alleviating a bit of the suffering that he has endured. An e a r n e s t effort has to be made to compensate him for the same in a just and reasonable manner.
67.The petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental and psychological shock, Rs. 10,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, and Rs. 5,00,000/- towards loss of amenities. The injured has suffered grievous injuries especially in head and not able to stand, walk or perform nature calls without any assistance.
68. Hence, keeping in view the extent and nature of the injuries suffered by the claimant and duration of the treatment taken by her etc., an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- each is being awarded to her towards (i) Pain and suffering, and (ii) Loss of amenities respectively. Further, an amount of Rs.
DAR No. 36/2021 Page. 31 of 45 Ms. Gudiya Vs Ashish Mishra & Ors 1,00,000/- is also awarded to him for the mental and physical shock undergone by him. Thus, compensation for Mental & Physical shock, Pain & Suffering and Loss of amenities is hereby quantified as Rs.5,00,000/- under this head.
vi. Loss of Marriage Prospects (Non-Pecuniary):
69.A claim of Rs 5,00,000/- is claimed under this head. The petitioner is already married and having children. Accordingly no claim is made out under this head.
vii. Disfiguration (Non-Pecuniary):
70. A sum of Rs.5,00,000/- is claimed under this head. As per the testimony of PW-3 Dr. Satyam, injured had suffered head injures and had suffered 72% permanent disability. PW-2 stated that she has suffered paralysis in her both legs, hands and face and not able to lead a normal life. Compensation has already been considered for loss of future income. Accordingly, keeping in view of the whole facts and circumstances a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-is granted under this head.
DAR No. 36/2021 Page. 32 of 45 Ms. Gudiya Vs Ashish Mishra & Ors viii. Loss of earnings, inconvenience, hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress and unhappiness in future life etc. (Non- Pecuniary):
71. A sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- is claimed under this head. Keeping in view of the overall facts and circumstances, the claim is quantified as Rs.1,00,000/- under this head.
72. Thus, the total amount awarded under Non- Pecuniary damages is:
Sr. No Heads Amount
1. Compensation for Mental 1,00,000/-
& Physical shock
2. Pain & Suffering 2,00,000/-
3. Loss of amenities of life 2,00,000/-
4. Disfiguration 1,00,000/-
5. Loss of Marriage Prospects -NIL-
6. Loss of earnings, 1,00,000/-
inconvenience, hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress and unhappiness in future life etc TOTAL 7,00,000/-
DAR No. 36/2021 Page. 33 of 45 Ms. Gudiya Vs Ashish Mishra & Ors (b) Issue No.3: Relief. i. Amount of Award:
73.Thus, the total amount of award, after adding Pecuniary damages (Rs.53,45,687/-) and Non Pecuniary damages(Rs.7,00,000/-) amounts to Rs. 60,45,687/-.
74. Thus, the claimant is awarded as sum of Rs. 60,45,687/- along with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of claim petition. The rate of interest has been calculated in terms of the succeeding paragraphs.
ii. Rate of Interest:
75.It was contended by Ld Counsel for the respondent insurance company that the amount of interest ought to at @7.5%, in accordance with the general prevalent practice in Courts. However, Ld Counsel for the claimant sought 9% as the rate of interest.
76. In order to adjudicate these rival claims, recourse can be had to Erudhaya Priya v State Transport Corporation 2020 SCC OnLine SC 601 wherein the aspect of rate of interest was categorically enunciated as thus:
(c) The third and the last aspect is the interest rate claimed as 12% "15.In respect of the aforesaid, the appellant has watered down the interest rate during the course of hearing to 9% in view of the judicial pronouncements including in the Jagdish case (supra). On this aspect, once again, there was no DAR No. 36/2021 Page. 34 of 45 Ms. Gudiya Vs Ashish Mishra & Ors serious dispute raised by the learned counsel for the respondent once the claim was confined to 9% in line with the interest rates applied by this Court"
77.Ergo, the amount of compensation/award amount will be payable by the respondent insurance company with simple interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the claim petition/DAR till actual realisation. The date of filing of DAR is 04.02.2021 therefore the amount of Interest is calculated at @ 9 % from the date of filing of petition (for 61 months) i.e. Rs.27,65,901/-. Thus, the total amount of award is Rs.88,11,588/-.
78.It is also clarified that 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. DEPOSIT OF AWARD& RELEASE/APPORTIONMENT iii. Deposit of Award:
79.In terms of the mandate of order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) the respondent Insurance Company/driver/owner shall deposit the award amount or transfer the same by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS directly to the bank account of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in UCO Bank, DAR No. 36/2021 Page. 35 of 45 Ms. Gudiya Vs Ashish Mishra & Ors Patiala House Courts within 30 days of the award. The respondent(s) held liable to pay compensation by the Claims Tribunal shall give notice of deposit of the compensation amount to the claimant(s) 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 the interest upto the date of notice of deposit to the claimant(s) with a copy to their counsel.
80.Release: In the present matter, out of awarded amount, a sum of Rs.18,11,588/- is directed to be released to the petitioner immediately in her bank account through electronic mode and remaining award amount is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in the Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in the form of 120 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for a period of 1 to 120 months in succession.
81.The Nodal officer of the bank shall ensure disbursement of the award within 3 weeks of receipt thereof by email or otherwise.
82.The disbursement to the claimant is, however, subject to the addition of future interest till deposit proportionately and also deduction of proportionate tax on the interest amount or amount of interim award, if any, to/from his share.
DAR No. 36/2021 Page. 36 of 45 Ms. Gudiya Vs Ashish Mishra & Ors iv. Disbursement of the award amount & protection thereof:
83.The amount of award shall be disbursed through the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD)Scheme formulated vide order dated 01.05.2018 passed in Rajesh Tyagi(supra). 21 banks, including UCO Bank, is implementing the MACAD scheme.
84.Further, to protect the award amount, the entire amount of compensation is not being released forthwith to the claimant, and part of the compensation amount has been directed to be kept in fixed deposits in a phased manner. Further, the following conditions are hereby reiterated and being imposed upon the concerned bank with respect to the fixed deposits:
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint names to be added in the savings bank account or MACAD scheme account of claimant i.e. the bank account of claimant shall be individual account and not a joint account.
(b) The original fixed deposits shall be retained by the UCO Bank, PHC, New Delhi in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR numbers, amounts, dates of maturity and maturity amounts shall be furnished by the said bank to the claimant and the above amount shall be released in account of claimant by the Manager, UCO Bank, PHC, ND through RTGS/NEFT/or any other electronic mode.
DAR No. 36/2021 Page. 37 of 45 Ms. Gudiya Vs Ashish Mishra & Ors
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of his residence.
(d) The maturity amount of the FDR(s) on monthly basis net of TDS be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the above account of the claimant.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the MACAD 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 been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank DAR No. 36/2021 Page. 38 of 45 Ms. Gudiya Vs Ashish Mishra & Ors official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause above.
LIABILITY
85.Respondent no. 1 to Respondent no. 3 are jointly and severely liable to pay compensation. The Insurance company has already settled the matter with other injured Parsuram. The factum of insurance is not disputed. No breach of policy condition / statutory defence is proved. Accordingly, insurance company is duty bound to pay the compensation and indemnify the insured. Respondent no.3 being insurer of offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the award amount with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Branch, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in bank account being maintained in the above said bank in name of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal within 30 days from today, failing which it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of delay. In case even after lapse of 90 days from today, respondent no. 3 fails to deposit this compensation with interest, in that event, in light of judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal 2007 ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching DAR No. 36/2021 Page. 39 of 45 Ms. Gudiya Vs Ashish Mishra & Ors the bank account of respondent no. 3 with a cost of Rs.5,000/-.
86.The respondent no. 3 shall inform the petitioner and his counsel that the awarded amount has been deposited so as to facilitate him to collect the same.
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES
87.Since this is a case pertaining to injury, particulars of Form-
XVI of the Scheme For Motor Accidents Claims Formulated by the Delhi High Court in terms of order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) are as under:
1. Date of accident : 16.09.2020
2. Name of the injured : Gudiya
3. Age of the injured : 40 Years 08 months.
4. Occupation of the injured : Private Job.
5. Income of the injured : Rs 18,552/-
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by : Yes the injured
8. Period of hospitalization : As per record
9. Whether any permanent : Yes. 72% Permanent disability.
disability?
10. Computation of Compensation Sr.No. Heads
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment : Rs.6,327/-
DAR No. 36/2021 Page. 40 of 45
Ms. Gudiya Vs Ashish Mishra & Ors
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance : Rs 1,00,000 /-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet : Rs.1,00,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant : Rs 18,00,000 /-
(v) Cost of artificial limb -NIL-
(vi) Loss of earning capacity : 100%
(vii) Loss of Income : The compensation under this head is
being considered along with loss of
future income.
(viii) Any other loss which may -NIL-
require any special treatment
or aid to the injured for the
rest of his life.
12. Non-pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental : Rs. 1,00,000/-
and physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering : Rs. 2,00,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life :
Rs. 2,00,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration : Rs. 1,00,000/-
(v) Loss of marriage prospects : -NIL-
(vi) Loss of earning, : Rs.1,00,000/-
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 : 72%
assessed and nature of
disability as permanent or
temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of : NIL
DAR No. 36/2021 Page. 41 of 45
Ms. Gudiya Vs Ashish Mishra & Ors
expectation of life span on
account of disability.
(iii) Percentage of loss of : 100%
earning relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income & : Rs.33,39,360/-
earning capacity (Rs.
18,552/- X 12) X 15
14. Total Compensation Rs.60,45,687/-
15. Interest Awarded :
16. Interest amount up to the : Rs.27,65,901/-
date of award (61 Months)
17. Total amount including : Rs.88,11,588/-
interest
18. Award amount released : Rs.18,11,588/-
19. Award amount kept in the : The remaining awarded amount be FDRs/ Motor Accident invested and deposited in 120 Claims Annuity Deposit monthly fixed deposits receipts (FDR) (MACAD) of equal amounts for a period of 120 months as per Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposits Schemes.
20. Mode of disbursement of : ECS the award amount to the petitioner (s)
21. Next date for compliance : 14.04.2026 of the award COMPLIANCE QUA PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME
88.The particulars of Form XVII of the Scheme For Motor Accidents Claims Formulated by the Delhi High Court , in terms of order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) are as hereunder:
DAR No. 36/2021 Page. 42 of 45
Ms. Gudiya Vs Ashish Mishra & Ors
1. Date of the accident 16.09.2020
2. Date of filing of Form I- First N.A.
Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the N.A. victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the N.A. Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the N.A. owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- N.A. Interim Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and N.A. Form VIB from the Victim (s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII-Detailed 04.02.2021 Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or No. deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by the Insurance Company.
11. Whether the Designated Officer of No. the Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or No deficiencies on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any DAR No. 36/2021 Page. 43 of 45 Ms. Gudiya Vs Ashish Mishra & Ors action/direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the NA petitioner(s) of the offer of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the Award 12.03.2026
15. Whether the petitioner(s) were Yes.
directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which petitioner(s) 16.10.2025 were directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the petitioner (s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s).
17. Date on which the petitioner(s) NA produced the passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of As mentioned above.
the petitioner(s)
19. Whether the petitioner(s) savings NA bank account(s) is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the petitioner(s) were No examined at the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
DAR No. 36/2021 Page. 44 of 45 Ms. Gudiya Vs Ashish Mishra & Ors
89.Further, in terms of the directions given vide order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra), the Ahlmad shall send a certified copy of this award to the concerned Criminal Court and to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority through e- mail. Copy of the award be also sent to the bank concerned. The Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII as per the directions given in the above case.
90. File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary formalities. Separate file be prepared for compliance report and be put up on 14.04.2026.
Digitally signed by Abhilash Abhilash Malhotra Malhotra Date:
Announced in the open court 2026.03.12 16:21:54 on 12.03.2026 +0530 (Abhilash Malhotra) Judge/PO, MACT-02, New Delhi/ 12.03.2026 DLND010004862021 DAR No. 36/2021 Page. 45 of 45 Ms. Gudiya Vs Ashish Mishra & Ors