Delhi District Court
Raja Kumar (I) (Fir 124/2023/Gulabi ... vs Virender (Bajaj Allianz) on 14 January, 2026
IN THE TRIBUNAL OF PRESIDING OFFICER MACT-02:
CENTRAL DISTRICT:
TIS HAZARI DISTRICT COURTS: DELHI.
PRESIDED OVER BY MS. POOJA AGGARWAL, DHJS
MACT No. 758/2023
CNR/UID No. DLCT01-011826-2023
In Respect of:
FIR No. 124/2023
PS Gulabi Bagh
U/s 279/338 IPC
Raja Kumar(Injured)
S/o Sh. Ramvriksh Paswan @ Ram Braksh Paswan
R/o S-24/347 A, Majdoor Kalayan Camp,
Okhla Phase-I, Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase-1, South Delhi-110020 .......Petitioner
(Through Ld. Counsel Sh. A. K. Mishra)
VERSUS
1. Virender Bhushan Gupta (Driver)
S/o Lt. Hari Bhusan Gupta,
R/o H. No. A-22, Ashok Vihar,
Phase-3, Delhi-110052.
(Through Ld. Counsel Sh Jai Narain)
2. M/s Rubik Solutions (Owner)
R/o H. No. A-22, Phase-3,
Ashok Vihar, Delhi.
Office at 1109, Pragati Towers,
Rajendra Palace, Delhi-110008.
(Through Ld. Counsel Sh Jai Narain)
3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
Office at Block No. 4,
7th Floor, DLF Tower,
15 Shivaji Marg, New Delhi-110015.
(Through Ld. Counsel Sh. Sujit K. Jaiswal)
.....Respondents
MACT No. 758/23
In Respect of FIR No. 124/23 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 1 of 43
Raja Kumar v. Virender Bhushan Gupta & Ors.
Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.14
17:24:51 +0530
Date of filing of DAR : 22.08.2023
Judgment reserved on : 14.01.2026
Date of award : 14.01.2026
AWARD/JUDGMENT
1. The present Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred to as
'DAR') has been filed by the Investigating Officer in respect of
the injuries sustained by Sh. Raja Kumar (hereinafter referred to
as 'Petitioner/ injured') due to an accident which took place on
03.05.2023.
2. Vide order dated 22.08.2023, passed by the Ld. Predecessor, the
DAR was directed to be treated as a claim petition under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as
'MV Act').
Brief Facts as per DAR
3. As per the DAR, on 03.05.2023, at about 11.00 a.m., the Petitioner was crossing the road at Chaudhary Nand Lal Marg, near Gurudwara Red Light, Delhi along with his companions, when a grey colour Wagon-R car bearing registration number DL-8CAL-8844 (hereinafter referred to as 'Offending Vehicle'), which was being driven at a high speed in rash and negligent manner, came from behind and hit them, resulting injuries to the Petitioner/injured as well as his companion Sant Ram S/o Sahdev, whereafter the driver was apprehended at the spot and the injured were taken to NKS Hospital, Gulabi Bagh for treatment, then referred to Trauma Center and further referred to LNJP Hospital for further treatment.
MACT No. 758/23In Respect of FIR No. 124/23 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 2 of 43 Raja Kumar v. Virender Bhushan Gupta & Ors.
Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.14
17:24:57 +0530
4. In respect of the accident in question, FIR No. 124/23, under Section 279/338 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"), PS Gulabi Bagh was registered and during investigation, it was found that the offending vehicle was being driven by Virender Bhushan Gupta (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent No. 1"), owned by M/s Rubik Solutions (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent No.2") and insured with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent No. 3").
Brief Facts as per the Reply of Respondent No. 1 and 2.
5. In their joint reply to the DAR, the Respondent No. 1 and 2 did not dispute that on 03.05.2023, the Respondent No. 1 was driving the offending vehicle, which was owned by Respondent No. 2 and insured by Respondent No. 3, but stated that the vehicle was being driven within permissible speed limit, when the injured, including the Petitioner, tried to cross the road suddenly and started running on the road in a hurry, without observing traffic on the road and in that process, they struck with the divider and got injured. It has been further stated that the injured had not been struck by the Respondent No. 1 and his vehicle got damaged while trying to save the injured. It has also been asserted that the accident in question was not caused due to any negligence of Respondent No. 1.
Brief Facts as per the reply filed by Respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company.
6. In its reply, the Respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company stated that the offending vehicle No. DL-8CAL-8844 was insured with it for the period w.e.f. 07.02.2023 to 06.02.2024, subject to its MACT No. 758/23 In Respect of FIR No. 124/23 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 3 of 43 Raja Kumar v. Virender Bhushan Gupta & Ors.
Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.14
17:25:02 +0530
terms and conditions but they were not liable to pay any compensation as the Respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid license at the time of accident, and the insured allowed the driver to drive the insured vehicle knowing he was not holding a driving license and thereby committing deliberate and willful breach of the policy. On merits, the Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company reserved its right to contest the case raising all grounds available to the driver and owner in case they failed to contest the claim or there was collusion.
Issues
7. From the pleadings on record, the following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 07.03.2024 in respect of the present case as well as in respect of the connected case MACT 759/2023, titled Sant Ram v. Virender Bhushan & Ors.:-
1.Whether the petitioner Raja Kumar and Santram suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 03.05.2023 at about 11.00 AM involving vehicle bearing registration No. DL-8CAL-8844 driven by respondent no. 1, rashly and negligently, owned by the respondent No. 2 and insured with the respondent no. 3? OPP.
2.Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3.Relief.
8. As the present case pertains to injured Raja Kumar only, the Award shall be passed in respect of his claim only.
Evidence of the Petitioner
9. In support of his claim, the Petitioner Raja Kumar examined himself as PW-1 tendering his evidence by way of affidavit i.e. Ex. PW-1/A wherein he testified on similar lines as the DAR in MACT No. 758/23 In Respect of FIR No. 124/23 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 4 of 43 Raja Kumar v. Virender Bhushan Gupta & Ors.
Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.14
17:25:06 +0530
respect of the manner of the accident and as to the injuries sustained by him and his friend Sant Ram. He reiterated that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the Respondent No. 1. He also testified that he and his friend Sant Ram were removed to NKS Hospital, Gulabi Bagh where he was treated vide MLC No. 1840/5/23, dated 03.05.2023, thereafter, he was transferred to higher center for treatment and thereafter, he was shifted to LNJP Hospital in an ambulance. He also testified that he had pain and bleeding from wound over his right leg and right foot; head injury, 11 X 8 cm, open wound on his right leg and exposed soft tissue muscle and bone, 3 X 2 cm linear laceration aspect of his right foot and other injuries, due to which he remained admitted in LNJP Hospital w.e.f. 03.05.2023 till 11.07.2023 and during treatment, he was diagnosed with multiple fractures i.e. fracture in tibial bone on his right leg (open grade-IIIb) and middle 1/3rd leg defect. He further testified that during hospitalization, he had undergone surgery i.e. ankle spanning Ext. fixation, reverse sural artery flat+STSG+Raw area covered and STSG on his right leg on 08.05.2023 and Skit Split Grafting on 21.06.2023, Graft harvested from his left leg. PW-1 further testified that he also remained admitted w.e.f. 28.08.2024 to 30.08.2024 in Mata Chandrakala Hospital, Bihar where he underwent a surgery during his admission.
10. The Petitioner/PW-1 further testified that he was confined to bed for several months and remained under treatment for about one year and six months. He also testified that he incurred expenses of around ₹50,000/- for his treatment, having MACT No. 758/23 In Respect of FIR No. 124/23 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 5 of 43 Raja Kumar v. Virender Bhushan Gupta & Ors.
Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.14
17:25:12 +0530
misplaced/ lost some of the medical bills. He also testified as to having incurred an expense of about ₹35,000/- approximately towards conveyance, an expense of around ₹50,000/- to ₹60,000/- on special diet and about ₹1,00,000/- to ₹1,50,000/- on the attendants.
11.The Petitioner/ PW1 also testified that at the time of the accident, he was aged about 27 years, earning about ₹22,000/- per month by doing private job as a driver and that he is unable to drive after the accident, due to which he has been permanently physically disabled and his earning capacity has reduced and he is jobless.
12. The Petitioner/PW1 also relied upon the following documents :-
S.No Description of Documents Exhibit/Mark
1. Copy of his Aadhar card Ex.PW-1/1 (objected to)
2. Copy of his driving license Ex.PW-1/2 (objected to)
3. Discharge slip of LNJP Ex.PW1/3 (Colly) Hospital and Mata (objected to) Chandrakala Sharing Life Hospital, Bihar along with his photographs
4. Original OPD prescription of Ex.PW1/4 (Colly) LNJP Hospital (objected to)
5. Original X-Ray/investigation Ex.PW1/5 (Colly) report (objected to)
6. Original medical bills Ex.PW1/6 (Colly) (wrongly mentioned as Ex.
PW1/7 at the time of tendering) MACT No. 758/23 In Respect of FIR No. 124/23 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 6 of 43 Raja Kumar v. Virender Bhushan Gupta & Ors.
Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.14
17:25:17 +0530
7. Copy of complete DAR Ex. PW1/7 (colly)
13. He was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsels for the Respondents No. 1 and 2 as well as by Ld. Counsel for Respondent No. 3.
Evidence of the Respondents
14. The Respondents No. 1 and 2 did not lead any evidence.
15. The Respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company examined only one witness, namely, Mr. Ashit Gupta, Assistant Manager as R3W1, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. R3W1/A, inter alia, asserting that they had issued a notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC to the Respondent No. 1 and 2 through their counsel for producing original driving license and original insurance policy. He further testified that the driver of the insured vehicle/Respondent No. 1 was not holding a driving license at the time of accident and has been prosecuted under Section 3/181 MV Act. R3W1 further deposed that the insured has committed willful and deliberate breach of the policy condition as the insured and the persons responsible for its affairs knew that the driver was not holding a driving license still they allowed him to drive the same, therefore, the Respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation. He also relied upon the following documents:-
S.No. Description of Document Exhibit/Mark
1. Notice under Order XII Rule 8 Ex. R3W1/1 CPC
2. Original postal receipts Ex. R3W1/2 MACT No. 758/23 In Respect of FIR No. 124/23 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 7 of 43 Raja Kumar v. Virender Bhushan Gupta & Ors.Digitally signed by POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.14
17:25:22 +0530
3. Copy of policy Ex. R3W1/3
16. During his examination in chief, Respondents No. 1 and 2 produced a copy of the policy and driving license of the driver i.e. Ex. R3W1/R2 and Ex. R3W1/R1, respectively.
17. He was duly cross-examined on behalf of the Ld. Counsel for Respondents No. 1 and 2 as well as by Ld. Counsel for Petitioner.
Final Arguments and Issue Wise Findings
18. Final arguments were advanced on behalf of the Petitioner and the Respondents by their respective counsels, which have been carefully considered along with the evidence on record. After careful consideration of the entire evidence, the issue wise findings are as under:
Issue No.1: Whether the petitioner Raja Kumar and Santram suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 03.05.2023 at about 11.00 AM involving vehicle bearing registration No. DL-8CAL-8844 driven by respondent no.
1, rashly and negligently, owned by the respondent No. 2 and insured with the respondent no. 3? OPP.
19. The onus to prove this issue was upon the Petitioner/ Raja Kumar and this issue shall be decided in this Award only qua the Petitioner Raja Kumar and not qua Sant Ram. It is a settled proposition of law that in this Tribunal strict proof of an accident having been caused in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the petitioners, and they are to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and MACT No. 758/23 In Respect of FIR No. 124/23 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 8 of 43 Raja Kumar v. Virender Bhushan Gupta & Ors.
Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.14
17:25:26 +0530
the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied. Strength for this interpretation is drawn from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, (2009) 13 SC 530, also reiterated in various subsequent judgments including Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., (2018) 5 SCC 656 and Geeta Dubey Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors, 2024 SCC Online SC 3779.
20. Even in Sajeena Ikhbal and Others Vs Mini Babu George and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2883, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated that in claim cases arising out of motor accidents, the Court has to apply the principles of preponderance of probability and cannot apply the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
21. In the present case, as per the testimony of the injured/ PW1 Raja Kumar, on 03.05.2023, at about 11.00 a.m., when he was crossing the road near Chaudhary Nand Lal Marg, near Gurudwara Red Light, Delhi along with his companions, a grey colour Wagon-R car bearing registration number DL-8CAL-8844 (Offending Vehicle), which was being driven at a high speed in rash and negligent manner, came from behind and hit them, resulting injuries to the injured as well as his companion Sant Ram S/o Sahdev. During his cross-examination, he testified that he was crossing the red light towards Shastri Nagar, while the vehicle was coming from the side of Teen Batti Chowk moving towards NKS Hospital. He has also testified that MACT No. 758/23 In Respect of FIR No. 124/23 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 9 of 43 Raja Kumar v. Virender Bhushan Gupta & Ors.
Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.14
17:25:30 +0530
the offending vehicle had hit them from behind and dragged him for about 10-15 meters. He also testified that the accident had not occurred at point A shown in the site plan, but he had been hit at the red-light and dragged to point A. He denied having lost his balance while running as the red light had turned green or having lost his balance, hitting the divider and injuring himself. His testimony as to the manner of accident could not be discredited despite extensive cross-examination on behalf of the respondents.
22. It is duly noted that the Respondents failed to bring on record any evidence to controvert the version out forth by the Petitioner/ injured and even though the Respondents No.1 and 2 had taken a plea in their reply to the effect that the vehicle was being driven within permissible speed limit, when the injured, including the Petitioner, had tried to cross the road suddenly and started running on the road in a hurry, without observing traffic on the road and in that process, they struck with the divider and got injured, and that the injured had not been struck by the Respondent No. 1 whose vehicle got damaged while trying to save the injured, the Respondent No.1 never stepped into the witness box to depose in respect of the same nor brought on record any other evidence to prove the version put forth in the reply. That being so, no evidence has been brought on record to prove that the accident was the result of any act or omission on the part of the Petitioner.
23. The Mechanical Inspection Report of the car bearing number DL-8CAL-8844 reflects damage including front bumper MACT No. 758/23 In Respect of FIR No. 124/23 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 10 of 43 Raja Kumar v. Virender Bhushan Gupta & Ors.
Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.14
17:25:34 +0530
damage, front show damage, bonnet press, front right side mud guard damage, right side body press etc, which is also consistent with the testimony of PW1/ Petitioner and in respect of accident in question, the Respondent No. 1 was charge-sheeted by the investigating agency for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279/338 IPC as well as Section 3/181 and 5/180 MV Act in respect of FIR No.124/23, PS Gulabi Bagh, after concluding its investigation on the aspect of manner of the accident as well as the identity of the offender.
24. Therefore, the filing of the chargesheet against the Respondent No.1 also indicates existence of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the Respondent No. 1, even more so as the Respondent no.1 has failed to bring on record the existence of any reason for false implication of the offending vehicle nor any defence has been proved by the driver as neither Respondent No. 1 has appeared to explain the circumstances under which the accident took place nor any evidence has been led to disbelieve that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of Respondent No.1.
25. Strength for this interpretation is also drawn from the judgement of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa Rana, 2009 ACJ 287 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepak Goel & Ors, 2014 (2) TAC 846 (Del) wherein the Coordinate Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, held as under:-
"......where the claimants filed either the certified copies of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of investigation by police or issuance of charge sheet under Section 279/304A IPC or the certified copy of FIR or the recovery of the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, then these MACT No. 758/23 In Respect of FIR No. 124/23 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 11 of 43 Raja Kumar v. Virender Bhushan Gupta & Ors.Digitally signed by POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.14
17:25:38 +0530
documents are sufficient proof to reach to a conclusion that the driver was negligent particularly when there is no defence available from the side of driver."
(Emphasis supplied)
26. Further, considering that the Petitioner cannot be expected to prove the accident beyond reasonable doubts and the principle of res ipse loquitor i.e. "accident speaks for itself" is applicable, it would imply that once it has been established in DAR and chargesheet that the accident had taken place, the burden shifts on the Respondents to prove that they were not responsible for the accident which the Respondents have failed to discharge.
27. Thus, in view of the aforesaid reasons and discussion, in view of the evidence as led including the chargesheet, mechanical inspection report as well as oral testimony of PW-1 who is an eye-witness of the accident being the injured himself, and in the absence of any evidence depicting any negligent/ sudden act or omission on the part of injured having been brought on record, it is held that on the scale of preponderance of probability, the Petitioner has discharged his burden and has proved that an accident that took place on 03.05.2023, at about 11.00 a.m involving vehicle bearing registration No. DL-8CAL-8844 driven by the Respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently, owned by Respondent No.2 and insured with the Respondent No. 3/ insurance company.
Injury
28. In respect of the injury sustained by the Petitioner Raja Kumar in the accident, it is noted that as per the testimony of PW1/ MACT No. 758/23 In Respect of FIR No. 124/23 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 12 of 43 Raja Kumar v. Virender Bhushan Gupta & Ors.
Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.14
17:25:43 +0530
Petitioner Raja Kumar, after the accident he was taken to NKS Hospital, where his MLC No. 1840/5/23 dated 03.05.2023 was prepared in respect of his injuries. The testimony of PW1 stands duly corroborated by the MLC No. 1840/5/23 dated 03.05.2023 which reflects the alleged history of road traffic accident on 03.05.2023 reflecting various injuries including lacerated wound over mid hairline forehead, lacerated wound over right ankle/ foot and abrasion over left side chest and the nature of injury has been opined to be grievous, as the nature of injuries are consistent with the injuries resulting from a road accident.
29. Even the discharge summary issued by LNJP Hospital dated 11.07.2023 i.e.Ex PW1/3 reflects the Petitioner to have remained admitted in Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Hospital, New Delhi from 03.05.2023 to 11.07.2023 due to the injuries sustained by him the accident i.e. fracture of tibial bone right leg with open leg defect which also corroborates the factum of grievous injuries having been sustained by the Petitioner due to the accident.
30. Even as per the disability certificate dated 21.05.2025 issued by Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, the petitioner has 45% permanent physical impairment in relation to his right lower limb, which is non-progressive and not likely to improve.
31. No reason has been brought on record to disbelieve either the MLC or even the discharge summary Ex PW1/2 (Colly), as well as the disability certificate dated 21.05.2025, which on the scale MACT No. 758/23 In Respect of FIR No. 124/23 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 13 of 43 Raja Kumar v. Virender Bhushan Gupta & Ors.
Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL POOJA Date: AGGARWAL 2026.01.14 17:25:47 +0530
of preponderance of probabilities, sufficiently proves that the accident in question resulted in grievous injury to the Petitioner.
32. Issue no.1 is, thus, decided in favour of the Petitioner Raja Kumar and against the Respondents.
Issue no 2.Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? and Issue no. 3.Relief.
33. Since the Petitioner sustained grievous injuries as a result of the accident in question, he is entitled to be compensated for the same and Section 168 of the MV Act enjoins upon this Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable.
Quantum of compensation
34. The guiding principles for assessment of "just and reasonable compensation" has been enumerated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Anjali v. Lokendra Rathod, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1683, wherein it has been observed that: -
"The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "MV Act") gives paramount importance to the concept of 'just and fair' compensation. It is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims or their families. Section 168 of the MV Act deals with the concept of 'just compensation' which ought to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability. Although such determination can never be arithmetically exact or perfect, an endeavor should be made by the Court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of the amount claimed by the applicant/s. In Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, this Court has laid down as under:
16."Just compensation" is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, MACT No. 758/23 In Respect of FIR No. 124/23 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 14 of 43 Raja Kumar v. Virender Bhushan Gupta & Ors.Digitally signed
by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.14 17:25:51 +0530 to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit."
(Emphasis supplied)
35. It is a settled proposition of law that in cases where the petitioner has suffered injuries due to the accident, the grant of compensation is under two broad categories, i.e. Pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary damages. The two categories of damages has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 551, which has also been reiterated in Atul Tiwari v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2025) 3 SCC 6 as under:
"9. Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (I) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit;
(iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened;
(iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life."
(Emphasis supplied)
36. The principles guiding such grant of compensation have been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 34, as under:
"General principles relating to compensation in injury cases
5. The provision of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`Act' for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that MACT No. 758/23 In Respect of FIR No. 124/23 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 15 of 43 Raja Kumar v. Virender Bhushan Gupta & Ors.Digitally signed by POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.14
17:25:55 +0530
compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The Court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376, R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby
- 1970 AC 467).
6. 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).
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."
(Emphasis supplied)
37. Further in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413, it has been held that:
"It is impossible to equate human suffering and personal deprivation with money. However, this is what the Act enjoins upon the courts to do. The court has to make a judicious attempt to award damages, so as to compensate the claimant for the loss MACT No. 758/23 In Respect of FIR No. 124/23 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 16 of 43 Raja Kumar v. Virender Bhushan Gupta & Ors. Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.14 17:25:58 +0530 suffered by the victim. On the one hand, the compensation should not be assessed very conservatively, but on the other hand, compensation should also not be assessed in so liberal a fashion so as to make it a bounty to the claimant. The court while assessing the compensation should have regard to the degree of deprivation and the loss caused by such deprivation. Such compensation is what is termed as just compensation. The compensation or damages assessed for personal injuries should be substantial to compensate the injured for the deprivation suffered by the injured throughout his/her life. They should not be just token damages."
(Emphasis supplied)
38. In view of the above legal propositions, the amount of compensation shall be computed in this case.
A: Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
39. In respect of his treatment/ medicine and hospitalization, the Petitioner has testified in his evidence affidavit i.e. Ex PW1/A, to the effect that he has incurred an expense of ₹50,000/- on his treatment. He has relied upon the documents Ex. PW1/6 (colly) purporting to be bills in respect of the expenses.
40. A bare perusal of the documents i.e. Ex PW1/6 reveals that despite the Petitioner having claimed medical expenses of only ₹50,000/-, he has attached the documents including receipts for the total of about ₹1,50,000/- without any explanation. It is also noted that except the documents at page no.2, 3, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 17, the remaining documents are not in the nature of bills, but are in the nature of receipts/vouchers etc., and from the same, it cannot be ascertained that these payments were made towards any treatment of the Petitioner Raja Kumar.
MACT No. 758/23In Respect of FIR No. 124/23 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 17 of 43 Raja Kumar v. Virender Bhushan Gupta & Ors.
Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.14
17:26:09 +0530
41. It is duly noted that though the Petitioner had testified in Ex PW1/A to the effect that some medical bills have been misplaced or lost, yet, he took no steps to summon any witness from the concerned hospital to prove that the receipts placed on record are in respect of his treatment, in the absence of which the mere receipts cannot be considered as no corresponding bills have been brought on record and the receipts exceed the amount which the Petitioner claims to have spent on his treatment.
42. Be that as it may, no reason has been brought on record to disbelieve the original medical bills as placed on record which are for ₹19,823/-, and thus, the petitioner is awarded a sum of ₹19,823/- which is the total of the bills produced by him towards treatment / hospital bills.
43. In respect of expenses towards nourishing food, it is noted that the Petitioner has testified in Ex PW1/A that he had incurred an expense of about ₹50,000 to ₹60,000/- but he led no further evidence to prove the same. Be that as it may, though he has not brought on record any document to substantiate his claim of the expenses, but at the same time, it is not overlooked that in view of the injuries sustained by the Petitioner and considering that he remained under treatment till atleast 23.10.2023 and thereafter from 08.08.2024 to 30.08.2024 extending till atleast 03.11.2024, the Petitioner would have incurred expenses on special diet for his speedy recovery. That being so, a sum of ₹35,000/- is awarded to the Petitioner under the head of special diet.
MACT No. 758/23In Respect of FIR No. 124/23 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 18 of 43 Raja Kumar v. Virender Bhushan Gupta & Ors.
Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.14
17:26:13 +0530
44. In respect of expenses towards conveyance/transport, PW1/ Petitioner has testified in Ex. PW1/A that he had incurred an expense of about ₹ 30,000 to ₹40,000/- but he led no further evidence to prove the same. Be that as it may, it can also not be overlooked that as per the documents on record i.e. Ex PW1/4, the Petitioner has remained under treatment till atleast October 2023 and thereafter from 08.08.2024 to 30.08.2024 extending till atleast 03.11.2024. Thus, with the nature of injuries sustained by the Petitioner having resulted in 45% disability in relation to his right lower limb, he is likely to have incurred expenses towards conveyance/ transport including when visiting the doctors/ hospitals etc. during his treatment due to such injuries and subsequent disability. That being so, a sum of ₹25,000/- is awarded to the Petitioner under the head of transportation/ conveyance.
45. In respect of the misc expenses, PW1/Petitioner has testified as to having incurred an expense of ₹1,00,000/- to ₹1,50,000/- towards attendant, but he led no further evidence to prove the same. Be that as it may, it can also not be overlooked that as per the documents on record i.e. Ex PW1/4, the Petitioner has remained under treatment till atleast October 2023 and thereafter from 08.08.2024 to 30.08.2024 extending till atleast 03.11.2024. Thus, with the nature of injuries sustained by the Petitioner having resulted in 45% disability in relation to his right lower limb, he is likely to have incurred misc expenses including expense towards attendant. That being so, a sum of ₹25,000/- is awarded to the Petitioner under the head of Misc Expenses towards Attendant Charges.
MACT No. 758/23In Respect of FIR No. 124/23 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 19 of 43 Raja Kumar v. Virender Bhushan Gupta & Ors.
Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.14
17:26:17 +0530
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
46. In respect of loss of earning during the period of treatment , it is noted that as per the medical documents on record i.e. Ex PW1/4, the Petitioner has remained under treatment since 03.05.2023 till atleast October 2023 and thereafter from 08.08.2024 to 30.08.2024 extending till atleast 03.11.2024, and in view of the nature of his injuries and treatment, he is bound to have suffered loss of income for the period thereof. Hence, he is entitled to be compensated for the loss of his income for the aforementioned period of treatment of about 09 months.
47. To compute the same, the quantum of monthly income of Petitioner needs to be ascertained. It is noted that as PW1, the Petitioner he has testified in Ex PW1/A that he was earning about ₹22,000/- per month as a driver doing private job. Despite such testimony, PW1/Petitioner did not bring on record any document to corroborate his self serving testimony and even admitted in his cross-examination that he had not filed any document regarding him working as a driver or earning ₹22,000/- per month. However, considering that the Petitioner has testified that he was working as a driver, his income shall be assessed on the basis of the minimum wages payable to a skilled person in Delhi at the time of the accident i.e. on 03.05.2023 i.e. ₹20,903/- per month and consequently, his loss of income is computed to be ₹1,88,127/- (₹20,903/-x 09).
MACT No. 758/23In Respect of FIR No. 124/23 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 20 of 43 Raja Kumar v. Virender Bhushan Gupta & Ors.
Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.14
17:26:21 +0530
48. Hence, the Petitioner is awarded a sum of ₹1,88,127/ - towards loss of income due to treatment.
49. In respect of the loss of future earnings, the petitioner has relied upon his disability certificate issued by Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital dated 21.05.2025, as per which he has 45% permanent physical impairment in relation to his right lower limb, which is non- progressive and not likely to improve and he has, inter-alia, claimed compensation on account of prospective income as well.
50. In Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 34, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has noted that:
"Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a human-being. Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor accidents injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995(`Disabilities Act' for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming compensation.
(Emphasis supplied) MACT No. 758/23 In Respect of FIR No. 124/23 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 21 of 43 Raja Kumar v. Virender Bhushan Gupta & Ors.Digitally signed by POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.14
17:26:26 +0530
51. It is has been further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors., (2011) 1 SCC 34 that:
"9. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the Doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 40% of all his four limbs, it is not the same as 40% permanent disability with reference to the whole body. The extent of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of a percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole body. If there is 60% permanent disability of the right hand and 80% permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent of permanent disability with reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the body have suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to the whole body, cannot obviously exceed 100%.
10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation.
11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanently disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terns of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation (see for example, the decisions of this court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. -MACT No. 758/23
In Respect of FIR No. 124/23 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 22 of 43 Raja Kumar v. Virender Bhushan Gupta & Ors.Digitally signed by POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.14
17:26:31 +0530
2010(10) SCALE 298 and Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567).
12. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence:
(i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary;
(ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement,
(iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is the permanent disability suffered by the person.
If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity.
13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent 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."
(Emphasis supplied)
52. In the present case, the 45% permanent physical impairment reflected in the disability certificate is in relation to the right lower limb of the Petitioner Raja Kumar, and not with reference to the whole body but the Respondents have not brought on record anything to disbelieve the said disability report. The Petitioner was working as a driver and he has also testified in Ex PW1/A as to being unable to drive due to the injuries sustained MACT No. 758/23 In Respect of FIR No. 124/23 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 23 of 43 Raja Kumar v. Virender Bhushan Gupta & Ors.
Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWALPOOJA AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.14 17:26:35 +0530 by him in the accident. As the disability of the Petitioner is in respect of his right lower limb, there is no reason to disbelieve that the same resulted in difficulty in driving of any vehicle by him. That being so, keeping in view the nature of work of the Petitioner as a driver which by its very nature requires the use of both legs and in view of the nature of injuries sustained by him, his functional disability is taken to be 45% in relation to the whole body.
53. Though the Respondent No.3/ insurance company has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh Road Transport Corporation v Vibhor Fialok And Anr., Civil Appeal No. 1337-1338/ 2019, to argue that the functional disability of the Petitioner be taken as less than 45% in relation to the whole body, the cited judgment is distinguishable on facts, as the same was not rendered in respect of injuries to a driver, and the Respondent No.3/ insurance company has also failed to bring forth any admission from the Petitioner or any other facts or evidence to lead to the inference/ conclusion that the functional disability sustained by the Petitioner is any less than 45% or as to him still being capable of working and earning as before. Consequently, the argument as raised by the Respondent No.3/ insurance company is rejected as being devoid of merits.
54. In respect of the loss of future income on account of permanent disability, it is noted that as the time of the accident i.e. on 03.05.2023, the injured/Petitioner Raja Kumar was aged about 26 years as his date of birth is reflected as 28.06.1996 in his MACT No. 758/23 In Respect of FIR No. 124/23 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 24 of 43 Raja Kumar v. Virender Bhushan Gupta & Ors.
Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWALPOOJA Date: AGGARWAL 2026.01.14 17:26:40 +0530 Aadhar Card as well as his Driving Licence i.e. Ex PW1/1 and Ex PW1/2 respectively.
55. His notional income has already been assessed to be ₹20,903/- per month on the basis of the minimum wages payable to a skilled person in Delhi at the time of the accident i.e. on 03.05.2023. In view of the proposition laid down in Erudhaya Priya v. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 601 (citing Jagdish v. Mohan, (2018) 4 SCC 571), the Petitioner is also entitled to the grant of future prospects. Thus, in view of the judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, 40% of the established income is to be added to the monthly income towards future prospects, if the injured is aged less than 40 years. That being so, an amount of ₹8,361/- (rounded off from ₹8,361.2/-) shall be added to the notional monthly income, and thus the monthly income inclusive of the future prospects comes to be ₹29,264/- and the annual income comes to be ₹3,51,168/-.
56. Further, as the Petitioner was aged about 26 years at the time of the accident, a multiplier of 17 shall be applicable (Ref: Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121) and therefore, the notional income of the Petitioner/ injured comes to be ₹59,69,856/-.(₹3,51,168/- x 17).
57. As the functional disability of the Petitioner has been taken to 45%, the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability caused to the Petitioner arising out of the accident MACT No. 758/23 In Respect of FIR No. 124/23 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 25 of 43 Raja Kumar v. Virender Bhushan Gupta & Ors.
Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.14
17:26:43 +0530
comes to be ₹26,86,435.2/- (i.e.45% of the notional income) and the Petitioner/injured is awarded the same.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
58. The Petitioner has not led any evidence as to any foreseeable medical expenses arising in the future due to the injury sustained by him in the accident. Hence, no amount is awarded to him under this head.
B. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
59. In respect of the damages under this head, it is noted that the factum of the petitioner/injured having sustained grievous injuries with 45% permanent disability in his right lower limb already stands proved. Further, as per the treatment documents placed on record by the Petitioner, he remained under treatment from the date of the accident i.e. 03.05.2023 till atleast October 2023 and thereafter from 08.08.2024 to 30.08.2024 extending till atleast 03.11.2024. Due to the nature of injuries and considering the age of the Petitioner/injured at the time of the accident, it can safely be inferred that he must have suffered pain and trauma due to the accident. Accordingly, a lump sum amount of ₹50,000/- is granted in favour of the Petitioner towards damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
MACT No. 758/23In Respect of FIR No. 124/23 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 26 of 43 Raja Kumar v. Virender Bhushan Gupta & Ors.
Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.14
17:26:47 +0530
60. In the present case, as the Petitioner has sustained grievous injury in the accident resulting in 45% disability, it cannot be ignored that he faces a possibility of denial of enjoyment of the simple pleasures of life and companionship as well as enjoyment of life. That being so, a sum of ₹35,000/- is awarded to the Petitioner/ injured towards loss of amenities.
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
61. No evidence has been brought on record by the petitioners to show as to whether there is any loss of expectation of life due to the injuries sustained by the Petitioner in the accident. That being so, no amount is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
62. For the sake of convenience, the amount as awarded to the Petitioner Raja Kumar in respect of issue no.2 is summarized as under:-
S. No. HEAD AMOUNT
1. Treatment /medicine expenses ₹19,823/-
2. Hospitalization expenses
3. Special Diet ₹35,000/-
4. Transport/conveyance ₹25,000/-
5. Misc Expenses/ Attendant ₹25,000/-
Charges
6. Loss of earning during ₹1,88,127/-
hospitalization
7. Loss of future earnings on ₹26,86,435.2/-
account of permanent
disability
8. Damages for pain, suffering ₹50,000/-
and trauma as a consequence of the injuries MACT No. 758/23 In Respect of FIR No. 124/23 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 27 of 43 Raja Kumar v. Virender Bhushan Gupta & Ors.
Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.14
17:26:59 +0530
9. Loss of amenities ₹35,000/-
10. Loss of expectation of life NIL
TOTAL ₹30,64,385/-
(rounded off from
₹30,64,385.20/-)
63. In respect of entitlement of the Petitioner to interest on the awarded amount, it is duly noted that in the present matter is pending since 22.08.2023 and the rate of interest of fixed deposits in Nationalized banks has fluctuated several times during the pendency of the present proceedings. Thus, in the interest of justice and keeping in view the principles discussed in order dated 21.04.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Baby Raksha & Ors, MAC APP. No. 36/2023, the petitioner is awarded interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of petition, that is, with effect from 22.08.2023 till the date of the award i.e. 14.01.2026, i.e. a sum of ₹5,50,312/- (rounded off from ₹5,50,312.473/-) towards interest. The amount of interim award, if any, be deducted from the above amount, if the same has already been paid to the Petitioners.
Liability
64. At the very outset, it is noted that it is not in dispute that the offending vehicle was insured with the Respondent No.3/ insurance company at the time of the accident i.e. as on 03.05.2023, as the insurance policy was valid from 07.02.2023 to 06.02.2024.
65. However, the Respondent No.3/insurance company has raised a statutory defence as to there being a willful breach of terms and MACT No. 758/23 In Respect of FIR No. 124/23 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 28 of 43 Raja Kumar v. Virender Bhushan Gupta & Ors. Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.14 17:27:03 +0530 conditions of the insurance policy as the owner / Respondent No.2 had permitted the driver / Respondent No.1 to drive the insured vehicle despite knowing that the driver / Respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident, which thus absolved it from the liability to pay any compensation to the Petitioner.
66. R3W1 Sh Ashit Gupta being the Assistant Manager of the Respondent No.3/insurance company, has categorically testified in his affidavit i.e. Ex. R3W1/A as to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy in this case having been violated as the driver of the insured vehicle / Respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving licence and the Respondent No.1 had also been prosecuted under Section 3/181 Motor Vehicles Act. He has relied upon the notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC, i.e. Ex R3W1/1 and its postal receipt Ex R3W1/2 sent to Respondents No.1 and 2 to produce the original driving licence.
67. Though during the evidence of R3W1, the Respondents No.1 and 2 produced copy of the driving licence of the driver i.e. Ex R3W1/R1, however, the said Driving licence was valid only uptill 29.12.2020. Even during the course of the proceedings in this case, the Respondents No.1 and 2 failed to bring on record any driving licence of the Respondent No.1 which was valid as on the date of the accident i.e. on 03.05.2023.The fact that the Respondent No.1 /driver also failed to bring on record any valid driving licence despite issuance of notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC by the Respondent No.3/ insurance company, also warrants an adverse inference to be drawn as to such driving MACT No. 758/23 In Respect of FIR No. 124/23 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 29 of 43 Raja Kumar v. Virender Bhushan Gupta & Ors. Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL POOJA AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.14 17:27:07 +0530 licence not having been produced as the same was not in existence. That being so, the Respondent No.3/ insurance company has successfully proved that at the time of the accident on 03.05.2023, the offending vehicle was being driven by the Respondent No.1 without any valid driving licence.
68. It is also not in dispute that permitting the insured vehicle to be driven by a driver who does not hold a valid driving licence constitutes breach of the terms and conditions of insurance policy issued by the Respondent No.3/ insurance company to the insured i.e. Respondent No. 2/ owner.
69. However, the effect of such breach also needs to be considered.
In K. Nagendra v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2297, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that:
"7.2. K.T Thomas J., in New India Assurance Co. v. Kamla1, stated the position of law succinctly, thus:
"25.... The insurer and the insured are bound by the conditions enumerated in the policy and the insurer is not liable to the insured if there is violation of any policy condition. But the insurer who is made statutorily liable to pay compensation to third parties on account of the certificate of insurance issued shall be entitled to recover from the insured the amount paid to the third parties, if there was any breach of policy conditions on account of the vehicle being driven without a valid driving licence. Learned counsel for the insured contended that it is enough if he establishes that he made all due enquiries and believed bona fide that the driver employed by him had a valid driving licence, in which case there was no breach of the policy condition. As we have not decided on that contention it is open to the insured to raise it before the Claims Tribunal. In the present case, if the Insurance Company succeeds in establishing that there was breach of the policy condition, the Claims Tribunal shall direct the insured to pay that amount to the insurer. In default the insurer shall be allowed to recover that amount (which the insurer is directed to pay to the claimant third parties) from the insured person.
1(2001) 4 SCC 342 MACT No. 758/23 In Respect of FIR No. 124/23 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 30 of 43 Raja Kumar v. Virender Bhushan Gupta & Ors.Digitally signed by POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.14
17:27:11 +0530
7.3. In Parminder Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.2, this Court approved the application of this principle in cases where the driver of the offending vehicle does not possess a valid driving license.
(Emphasis supplied)
70. In its order dated 29.01.2025, passed in M Ananthi & Ors. v P. Venkatesean & Anr, Civil Appeal No 1175/2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had also discussed the liability of the insurance company in cases where the driver did not possess a valid driving licence, as under:
"7. In so far as the liability on the Insurance Company is concerned, the Courts below have rightly held that since the driver of the offending vehicle was not having any license to drive the same, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to compensate.
8. We find no error or illegality in the said part of the order also. However, while granting the compensation of Rs.10,36,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs thirty-six thousand) with interest, the High Court has not directed the Insurance Company to pay the sum and to recover the same from the owner/driver.
9. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and Ors.: (2004) 3 SCC 297, it has been laid down that the claimant should not be allowed to suffer and run about to release the compensation awarded and that, it is in the fitness of things that the Insurance Company in such cases should first pay and then recover the amount.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we partly modify the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court dated 20.08.2020 and direct the respondent No.2 to make the payment of the compensation awarded which shall be invested/distributed as per the directions contained in the order of the High Court to the Claimants/appellants.
11.The respondent No.2 is at liberty to recover the said amount from the owner/driver of the vehicle in accordance with law."
(Emphasis supplied)
71. Hence, it is evident, that even in cases of breach of the terms and conditions of the policy including the driver not possessing valid driving licence, the liability of the insurance company subsists towards the third party, though it is not for the insurance company to bear the ultimate liability, and the insurer shall be 2(2019) 7 SCC 217 MACT No. 758/23 In Respect of FIR No. 124/23 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 31 of 43 Raja Kumar v. Virender Bhushan Gupta & Ors. Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.14 17:27:15 +0530 entitled to recover the amount paid to the third parties from the insured.
72. Even the policy Ex R3W1/3 as issued and relied upon by the Respondent No.3 / insurance company itself, records that it is the insured who shall not be indemnified if the vehicle is used or driven otherwise than in accordance with the schedule and the schedule, inter-alia, covers the driving of the vehicle by persons holding valid driving licence. Hence, as per the policy Ex R3W1/3 itself, the insurance company does not get absolved of its statutory liability towards the third party.
73. That being so, as the offending vehicle was admittedly insured with the Respondent No. 3, at the time of the accident, the Respondent No.3/ insurance company is liable to pay the entire compensation amount to the Petitioner, but with recovery rights against the insured i.e. Respondent No.2/ owner of the offending vehicle as well as the Respondent No.1/driver jointly and severally.
74. It had been argued on behalf of the Respondent No.3/ insurance company that after the 2019 amendment, whereby the proviso to Section 149 (4) MV Act, 1998 was omitted after its replacement by Section 150 of Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, the insurance was absolved of any liability to pay the compensation at all. However, the argument as raised is rejected as being devoid of merits in view of the judgment of the Hom'ble Allahabad High Court in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
MACT No. 758/23In Respect of FIR No. 124/23 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 32 of 43 Raja Kumar v. Virender Bhushan Gupta & Ors.
Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.14
17:27:19 +0530
Ltd. v. Arti Devi, 2025 SCC OnLine All 1236, wherein it has been held that :
"The Court, therefore, holds that mere omission of proviso attached to sub-section (4) of Section 149 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 after its replacement by Section 150 of Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 (32 of 2019), neither takes away the liability of the insurer to pay the claimants nor its right to recover the said amount from the owner. The law to this effect remains intact and unaffected by Amendment Act, 2019 and, hence, insurer shall continue to indemnify the owner's risk in relation to accidents taking place after 01.04.2022 and "PAY & RECOVER" principle will still continue to govern the field advancing social object of the Statute protecting third party interest. Principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh, JT (2004) 1 SC 109 has not lost its significance and binding effect despite omission of proviso."
(Emphasis supplied)
75. Issue No. 2 and 3 are decided accordingly.
Disbursement/ Release
76. As per the Financial Statement of Petitioner, the monthly expenses of the family are approximately ₹22,000/- to ₹25,000/- per month. Hence, while deciding the quantum and manner of disbursement of the awarded amounts, the following directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide orders dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 titled Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors. have to be borne in mind:
"(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name to be added in the saving account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimants i.e. saving bank accounts of the claimants shall be an individual saving bank account and not a joint account.
(ii) Original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited by the ECS in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.MACT No. 758/23
In Respect of FIR No. 124/23 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 33 of 43 Raja Kumar v. Virender Bhushan Gupta & Ors.
Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.14
17:27:22 +0530
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without the permission of the court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimants. However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of claimants so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of claimants from any other branch of the bank.
(vi) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque books and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and the claimant shall produced the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court for compliance."
77. Thereafter, in Parminder Singh vs Honey Goyal, S.L.P. (C) No. 4484 OF 2020 as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 18 March, 2025 it has been further directed that:
"17. The case in hand pertains to the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. The general practice followed by the insurance companies, where the compensation is not disputed, is to deposit the same before the Tribunal. Instead of following that process, a direction can always be issued to transfer the amount into the bank account(s) of the claimant(s) with intimation to the Tribunal.
17.1 For that purpose, the Tribunals at the initial stage of pleadings or at the stage of leading evidence may require the claimant(s) to furnish their bank account particulars to the Tribunal along with the requisite proof, so that at the stage of passing of the award the Tribunal may direct that the amount of compensation be transferred in the account of the claimant and if there are more than one then in their respective accounts. If there is no bank account, then they should be required to open the bank account either individually or jointly with family members only. It should also be mandated that, in case there is any change in the bank account particulars of the claimant(s) during the pendency of the claim petition they should update the same before the Tribunal. This should be ensured before passing of the final award. It may be ensured that the bank account should be in the name of the claimant(s) and if minor, through guardian(s) and in no case it should be a joint account with any person, who is not a family member. The transfer of the amount in the bank account, particulars of which have been furnished by the claimant(s), as mentioned in the award, shall be treated as MACT No. 758/23 In Respect of FIR No. 124/23 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 34 of 43 Raja Kumar v. Virender Bhushan Gupta & Ors.
Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL POOJA Date: AGGARWAL 2026.01.14 17:27:26 +0530
satisfaction of the award. Intimation of compliance should be furnished to the Tribunal."
(Emphasis supplied)
78. In view of the same, the award amount can now be disbursed in the Savings Bank Account of the Petitioner. However, the remaining directions as passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court shall be complied with.
79. After considering the financial statement of the Petitioner Raja Kumar, it is directed that upon realization of the awarded amount of ₹36,14,697/- (inclusive of interest), a sum of ₹4,14,697/- shall be released to him immediately in his Bank Account No.520402010278024, IFSC Code UBIN00552046, Union Bank of India, Sector-09 Rohini Branch, Delhi as furnished by him at the time of recording of his financial statement.
80. The balance amount of ₹32,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs Only) shall be put in 128 monthly fixed deposits in his name in his account as mentioned above of equal amount of ₹25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 128 months respectively, with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in his saving account maintained in the nationalized bank situated near the place of his residence.
81. The Respondent No.3 / Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd is directed to deposit the awarded sum of ₹36,14,697/- (Rupees MACT No. 758/23 In Respect of FIR No. 124/23 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 35 of 43 Raja Kumar v. Virender Bhushan Gupta & Ors.
Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.14
17:27:30 +0530
Thirty Six Lakhs Fourteen Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety Seven only) inclusive of interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of petition i.e. w.e.f. 22.08.2023 till the date of the award i.e. 14.01.2026 within 30 days by way of NEFT or RTGS mode directly in the MACT account of the petitioner as mentioned in the Para No 79 of this award under intimation to the petitioner as well as this Tribunal failing which the said Respondent shall be liable to pay interest @ 12 % per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days. (Ref: Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @ Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.)
82. The concerned Manager of the bank of the Petitioner is directed to release the amount to the Petitioner as per the award upon completion of necessary formalities as per the rules. He is directed to keep the amount in fixed deposits as per the directions given in the award and to send a compliance report to this court. He is also directed to ensure that no loan, advance or pre mature discharge is allowed on the fixed deposit without an order of this court.
83. A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of cost.
84. The summary of the award as per Form XV of the Annexure XIII and particulars of compliance of the Provisions of the Scheme as per Form XVII of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 as amended by the Central Motor Vehicles (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022, are also annexed with this Award as MACT No. 758/23 In Respect of FIR No. 124/23 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 36 of 43 Raja Kumar v. Virender Bhushan Gupta & Ors.
Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.14
17:27:34 +0530
Annexure A and B respectively, and shall form a part of this award.
85. Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)].
86. Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 06.01.2021 in MAC.APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., regarding digitization of the records.
87. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurer as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021 and also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information and compliance.
88. Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
89. This file be consigned to the Record Room after necessary compliance and a separate file be prepared for compliance report and put up the same on 16.02.2026.
MACT No. 758/23In Respect of FIR No. 124/23 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 37 of 43 Raja Kumar v. Virender Bhushan Gupta & Ors.
Digitally
signed by
POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.14
17:27:38
+0530
Digitally signed
Announced in the Open Court POOJA
by POOJA
AGGARWAL
today i.e. on 14th January 2026 AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.14
17:27:52 +0530
(POOJA AGGARWAL)
Presiding Officer, MACT-02 (Central) Tis Hazari, Delhi MACT No. 758/23 In Respect of FIR No. 124/23 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 38 of 43 Raja Kumar v. Virender Bhushan Gupta & Ors.
ANNEXURE A FORM - XVI, Central Motor Vehicles (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (part of Annexure XIII. Ref: Rule 150A) SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident : 03.05.2023
2. Name of the injured : Mr. Raja Kumar
3. Age of the injured : 26 years
4. Occupation of the injured : Self Employed
5. Income of the injured : Assessed on the basis of Minimum Wages of a Skilled Person prevailing in Delhi at relevant time
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured : As per record
8. Period of hospitalisation : 03.05.2023 to 11.07.2023 28.08.2024 to 30.08.2024
9. Whether any permanent disability?
If yes, give details : Yes, permanent physical disability of 45% in relation to his right lower limb
10. Computation of Compensation S.No. Heads Awarded by Claims Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on treatment ₹19,823/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance ₹25,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet ₹35,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant ₹25,000/-MACT No. 758/23
In Respect of FIR No. 124/23 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 39 of 43 Raja Kumar v. Virender Bhushan Gupta & Ors. Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL POOJA AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.14 17:28:19 +0530
(v) Cost of artificial limb --
(vi) Loss of earning capacity --
(vii) Loss of income ₹1,88,127/-
(viii) Any other loss which may --
require any special treatment
or aid to the injured for the
rest of his life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and ₹50,000/-
physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering
(iii) Loss of amenities of life ₹35,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration N.A.
(v) Loss of marriage prospects N.A.
(vi) Loss of earning, N.A.
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 Permanent physical disability of assessed and nature of 45% in relation to his right lower disability as permanent or limb.
temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of N.A.
expectation of life span on
account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning 45%
capacity in relation to
disability
(iv) Loss of future Income - ₹26,86,435.20/-
(Income × % Earning
Capacity = Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION ₹30,64,385/- (rounded off)
MACT No. 758/23
In Respect of FIR No. 124/23 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 40 of 43
Raja Kumar v. Virender Bhushan Gupta & Ors.Digitally signed by POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.14
17:28:22 +0530
15. INTEREST AWARDED 7.5% p.a.
16. Interest amount up to the date ₹5,50,312/-
of award
17. Total amount including ₹36,14,697/-
interest
18. Award amount released ₹4,14, 697/-
19. Award amount kept in FDRs ₹32,00,000/-
20. Mode of disbursement of the Mentioned in the award award amount to the claimant(s)
21. Next date for compliance of 16.02.2026 the award
1. Prepared as per award dated 14.01.2026.
2. A separate file was ordered to be prepared by the Nazir with directions to put up the same on 16.02.2026.
Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWALPOOJA Date: AGGARWAL 2026.01.14 17:28:28 +0530 (POOJA AGGARWAL) Presiding Officer, MACT-02 (Central) Tis Hazari, Delhi 14.01.2026 MACT No. 758/23 In Respect of FIR No. 124/23 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 41 of 43 Raja Kumar v. Virender Bhushan Gupta & Ors.
ANNEXURE B FORM - XVII, Central Motor Vehicles (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (part of Annexure XIII. Ref: Rule 150A) Compliance of provisions of Scheme to be mentioned in the Award
1. Date of the accident 03.05.2023
2. Date of filing of Form-I - First Accident 12.05.2023 Report (FAR) (Original FAR tagged in MACT 759/2023)
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-Interim N.A. Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form- N.A. VIB from the Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - Detailed 22.08.2023 Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Investigating No Officer? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Designated Not mentioned Officer by the Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated Officer of the No Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or Yes.
deficiency on the part of the Designated No officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
MACT No. 758/23In Respect of FIR No. 124/23 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 42 of 43 Raja Kumar v. Virender Bhushan Gupta & Ors.
Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL POOJA Date: AGGARWAL 2026.01.14 17:28:34 +0530 13. Date of response of the petitioner(s) to the N.A. offer of the Insurance Company. 14. Date of the award 14.01.2026 15. Whether the petitioner (s) was/were Yes
directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which claimant(s) 17.11.2025 was/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 claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook.
17. Date on which the claimant(s) produced 06.12.2025 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 the S-24/347A, Claimant(s). Majdoor Kalayan Camp, Okhla Phase-I, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, South Delhi-110020
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank No account(s) is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at Yes the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.14
17:28:40 +0530
(POOJA AGGARWAL)
Presiding Officer, MACT-02 (Central) Tis Hazari, Delhi 14.01.2026 MACT No. 758/23 In Respect of FIR No. 124/23 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 43 of 43 Raja Kumar v. Virender Bhushan Gupta & Ors.