Delhi District Court
Rajender vs Sonu Sharma on 20 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF GUNJAN GUPTA, DISTRICT JUDGE-
CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-01, (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI
AWARD/JUDGMENT
MACT Case No. 170/2024
CNR No.DLWT010023822024
Sh. Rajender Prasad @ Rajender Kumar Sutar
S/o Sh. Ram Chander @ Ram Chander Sutar
R/o RZ-54, 2nd Floor, Gali no.1,
Madhya Marg, Tughalakabad Extension,
Kalkaji PO Kalkaji District South Delhi, Delhi-110019
...Petitioner
Versus
1. Sonu Sharma (Driver)
S/o Sh. Munna Sharma
R/o A-48, New Sainik Vihar, Gali No.5, Mohan Garden,
Uttam Nagar, West Delhi, Delhi-110059.
2. M/s Road Trans (Owner)
R/o F/F. H. No. 425, Pocket-6, Phase-1, CAT-A,
DDA Flat Nasirpur, Dwarka, south Delhi, South,
Delhi-110045
3. ICICI Lombard General (Insurer)
Insurance Company Limited
New Delhi.
Date of Institution : 16.03.2024
Date of reserving order/judgment : 16.02.2026
Date of pronouncement : 20.02.2026
Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.1 of 34
Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:18:56 +0530
FORM-XVII
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE
1. Date of the accident 26.09.2023
2. Date of filing of Form-I - 16.03.2024
First Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II 16.03.2024
to the victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III 16.03.2024
from the Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV 16.03.2024
from the Owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- 16.03.2024
Interim Accident Report
(IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA 16.03.2024
and Form-VIB from the
Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - 16.03.2024
Detailed Accident Report
(DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay Accident took place on
or deficiency on the part of 16.09.2023 and the DAR
the Investigating Officer? If was filed on 16.03.2024
so, whether any action/
direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the --
Designated Officer by the
Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated No
Officer of the Insurance
Company submitted his report
within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay No
or deficiency on the part of
the Designated Officer of the
Insurance Company? If so,
Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.2 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:18:59 +0530
whether any action/direction
warranted?
13. Date of response of the Legal offer was not filed in
claimant(s) to the offer of the the present matter
Insurance Company
14. Date of the award 20.02.2026
15. Whether the claimant(s) Yes
was/were directed to open
savings bank account(s) near
their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which 16.06.2024
claimant(s) was/were directed
to open savings bank
account(s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN
Card and Aadhaar 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) 16.02.2026
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 RZ-54, 2nd Floor, Gali no.1,
Address of the claimant(s). Madhya Marg,
Tughalakabad Extension,
Kalkaji PO Kalkaji District
South Delhi, Delhi-110019
19. Whether the claimant(s) Yes
savings bank account(s) is/are
near his/her/their place of
residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) Yes
was/were examined at the
Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.3 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:19:02 +0530
time of passing of the award
to ascertain his/her/their
financial condition?
AWARD
FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE
1.1 The present DAR was filed on 16.03.2024 by the
Investigating Officer (IO).
1.2 This DAR pertains to road vehicular accident dated
26.09.2023 which occurred at about 11:45 AM Near NCC
Building, Old Kirti Nagar Police Station Bus Stop within the
jurisdiction of PS Kirti Nagar in which Sh. Rajender Prasad @
Rajender Kumar Sutar S/o Sh. Ram Chander @ Ram Chander
Sutar (hereinafter referred as "petitioner") sustained simple
injuries. FIR No.439/2023 under Section 279/337/338 IPC &
3/181 MV Act was registered at PS Kirti Nagar.
1.3 As per the documents annexed with the DAR, the
petitioner has suffered injuries in the road accident due to rash
and negligent driving of TATA Ace bearing registration no.
DL1LAF7536 (hereinafter referred as "offending vehicle"), by
respondent no.1. As per the documents annexed, on 26.09.2023,
the petitioner took a sharing E-richshaw from Mayapuri Chowk to Kirti Nagar to reach his office Nilesh Creations. Thereafter, a woman along with her son also sat in the e-rickshaw. At about 11:30 AM, when they reached in front of NCC Camp, Old Police Station Kirti Nagar, Bus Stop, he deboarded from e-rickshaw and while he was paying his fare, the offending vehicle came from backside at a very high speed, in rash and negligent manner and hit the e-rickshaw and the said e-rickshaw overturned upon him. Consequently, the petitioner sustained injuries. The other Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.4 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21 17:19:04
+0530
passengers also sustained injuries. The respondent no. 1 took the injured persons to Acharyashree Bhikshu Govt. Hospital, Moti Nagar, Delhi-110015 where concerned doctor prepared MLC No.2926 dated 26.09.2023. In the final report annexed with the DAR, respondent no.1 was charged with the offences U/s 279/337/338 of IPC and 3/181 MV Act.
1.4 DAR mentions the respondent no.01 as driver, the respondent no.02 as owner and respondent no.03 as the insurer of offending vehicle.
REPLY OF RESPONDENTS 2.1 Respondent no.01 filed his WS inter alia stating that the petitioner has not come before this Tribunal with clean hands and claim of the petitioner is not maintainable. It is averred that respondent no.1 was not driving the vehicle negligently and was also not present at the spot when the accident happened and he reached there after sometime of the occurrence of the accident. It is averred that the petitioner has suffered injuries due to his own negligence and fault as he was standing on the road without following traffic rules. It is stated that the DAR is false and frivolous. With these averments, the respondent no.1 has prayed for dismissal of the DAR.
2.2 Respondent no.02 filed his WS inter alia stating that the petitioner has not come before this Tribunal with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from this Tribunal. The present petition is not maintainable as no accident has taken place with the vehicle of respondent no.2 and the same has been falsely implicated by the petitioner in connivance with the police official. The vehicle bearing No. DL1LAF7536 (TATA Ace) was Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.5 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:19:07 +0530
insured with ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company vide policy No. 3003/264719711/00/000 for the period from 27.10.2022 to 26.10.2023. The driver of respondent no.1 was having a valid driving license to drive the vehicle in question. It is averred that the site plan has been falsely prepared by the IO to help the victim and his family. It is further averred that false mechanical reports of the alleged offending vehicle were prepared on the instructions of the IO to help the victim and his family members. With these averments, respondent no.2 has prayed for dismissal of the DAR.
2.3 Respondent no.03 filed the reply inter alia stating that the driver of the offending vehicle does not hold any driving license and he has also been charge sheeted under Section 3/181 MV Act. It admitted that the vehicle bearing No. DL1LAF7536 was insured with it vide policy no. 3003/264719711/00/000 for the period from 27.10.2022 to 26.10.2023 in the name of M/s Road Trans.
ISSUES
3. After completion of pleadings, on 23.07.2024, the Ld. Predecessor of this tribunal framed following issues: -
1. Whether the injured Rajender Kumar Sutar sustained injuries in the accident that took place on 26.09.2023 at about 11:45 am at Near NCC Building, Old Kirti Nagar Police Station Bus Stop, New Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle(ACE) bearing registration number DL1LAF7536 being driven by respondent no.01, being owned by the respondent no.2 and insured with the respondent no.3?
OPP.
Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.6 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:19:09 +0530
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if yes, of what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
EVIDENCE 4.1 The petitioner examined himself as PW-1 to establish his claim. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW1/A. He relied upon photocopies of his medical treatment records as Ex.PW1/1(colly), photocopies of his medical bills as Ex.PW1/2(colly), photocopies of his salary slips and attendance sheet as Ex.PW1/3(colly), photocopies of his educational certificates as Ex.PW1/4(colly)(OSR), photocopy of his medical leave certificate as Ex.PW1/5, photocopy of his PAN card as Ex.PW1/6(OSR) photocopy of his Aadhar Card as Ex.PW1/7(OSR) and attested copy of complete set of DAR/criminal documents as Ex.PW1/8(colly) in his evidence. He was examined, cross-examined and was discharged. 4.2 No other witnesses were examined by petitioner. RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE 5.1 No evidence was led by respondent no.1 & 2. Vide order dt. 17.11.2025, the right of respondent no. 1 & 2 to lead evidence was closed on account of their non-appearance. 5.2 Respondent no.3 examined R3W1 Sh. Suryansh Dixit, Legal Manager as R3W1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.R3W1/A. He relied upon copy of insurance policy as Ex. R3W1/1(colly), legal notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC as Ex.R3W1/2 and postal receipts as Ex.R3W1/3 & Ex.R3W1/4 in his evidence. He was examined, cross-examined Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.7 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:19:11 +0530
and discharged.
ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER 6.1 It was argued by Ld. Counsel for petitioner that the petitioner has proved that the incident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.01, the expenses of the medical treatment of the injured and also the proof of income of the injured. It was argued that the employment certificate of the petitioner has been filed alongwith the DAR and, therefore, the same stands verified by the IO. It is submitted that keeping in view the above, the award may be passed by this Tribunal as per entitlement/claim of petitioner.
ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO. 1 6.2 It was argued by the Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 1 that no accident has taken place due to negligence of respondent no. 1 with the e-rickshaw as alleged. ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO. 2 6.3 No arguments were addressed on behalf of respondent no. 2.
ARGUMENTS OF Ld. COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 6.4 It was argued by Ld. Counsel for respondent no.03 that the petitioner has not filed on record any medical document showing that he was advised a bed rest for one month and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to loss of income for one month for his absence from work as the petitioner had only suffered a simple injury. It was argued that the petitioner has also Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.8 of 34
Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:19:13 +0530
not filed on record any medical prescription in support of the treatment bills filed by him. It was argued that in the absence of any prescriptions, it cannot be ascertained whether medical bills pertain to treatment taken for injuries related to the accident or not. It is further argued that as per the DAR, the respondent no.1 did not have a valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle at time of accident and therefore, Section 3/181 M.V. Act was invoked against the respondent no.1 in the final report filed by the IO and, therefore, the same is a violation of insurance policy. It is submitted that kalandra u/s 5/180 of MV Act was also prepared against respondent no.2. It was further argued that the date of occurrence of the accident is after 01.04.2022 and, therefore, the respondent no. 3 cannot be made liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner as after amendment of the Motor Vehicular Act, 1988 the right of the insurance company to pay and recover has been done away with. ANALYSIS/FINDINGS ON ISSUES ISSUE NO.(1) Whether the injured Rajender Kumar Sutar sustained injuries in the accident that took place on 26.09.2023 at about 11:45 am at Near NCC Building, Old Kirti Nagar Police Station Bus Stop, New Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle(ACE) bearing registration number DL1LAF7536 being driven by respondent no.01, being owned by the respondent no.2 and insured with the respondent no.3? OPP.
7.1 Before adverting to the facts of the present petition for deciding the above issue, at the very outset, it would be apposite to note here that strict rules of evidence are not Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.9 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:19:16 +0530
applicable in an inquiry conducted by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The standard of proof is not as strict as in criminal cases and evidence is to be tested on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities only. In fact, the burden of proof in a claim petition under the M.V. Act, is even lesser than a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of "Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors." (2009) 13 SC 530, "Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and Ors." 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and "Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.", 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 etc. 7.2 Keeping in mind the aforesaid legal preposition, this Tribunal has gone through the testimony of the witnesses and entire material available on record. This Tribunal has also given its thoughtful consideration to arguments addressed by Ld. Counsels for the parties.
7.3 The petitioner has categorically deposed in his examination-in-chief that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e. Tata Ace bearing registration No. DL-1LAF-7536 by respondent no.1. He deposed that the accident happened on 26.09.2023 at about 11:30 AM in front of NCC Camp, Old Police Station Kirti Nagar, Bus Stop, Kirti Nagar. He further deposed that he was travelling in an e- rickshaw with two other passengers i.e. a woman and her son and when he was deboarding the e-rickshaw and was paying the fare, the offending vehicle came from backside at very high speed, in rash and negligent manner and hit the e-rickshaw and Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.10 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:19:18 +0530
consequently the said e-rickshaw overturned upon him. He further deposed that he fell down on road and sustained injuries and was taken to Acharyashree Bhikshu Govt. Hospital, Moti Nagar, Delhi-110015 where his MLC was prepared and thereafter, he was treated at Higher Center at Holy Family Hospital Okhla Road, New Delhi. The petitioner in his evidence has relied upon his medical treatment records as Ex.PW1/1(colly) and attested copy of complete set of DAR/criminal documents as Ex.PW1/8(colly) amongst other documents.
7.4 Nothing favourable to the respondents came on record during the cross-examination of the petitioner and documents relied upon by him remained unrebutted. No cross- examination whatsoever was done on the aspect of involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident and the rashness and negligence of respondent no.1 in driving the offending vehicle. Merely some suggestions were given in this regard. 7.5 Further, the very fact that respondent no.1 was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 279/337/338 IPC with respect to the accident in question/FIR No.439/2023 is in itself a strong circumstance to support the testimony of PW-1 and sufficiently proves the complicity of the respondent no.1 in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. Also the respondent no. 1 did not have a valid driving license to drive the offending vehicle and was also charged with the offence U/s 3/181 of M.V. Act. The copies of the FIR, charge-sheet, MLC, site plan, seizure memos of the vehicles, mechanical inspection reports of the offending vehicles involved in the accident and statements recorded u/s 161 Cr. PC also corroborate Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.11 of 34
Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:19:20 +0530
the testimony of PW-1.
7.6 It is not disputed that there were three passengers
including a woman and her son in the e-rickshaw in which the petitioner was travelling. The statement of the said other passenger Reema and the driver of the e-rickshaw Ajay has also been recorded U/s 161 CrPC. In their respective statements, both Reema and Ajay have also narrated the same facts of the incident as stated by the petitioner and have clearly stated that the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner and had hit the e-rickshaw from behind due to which the same overturned on its passengers. 7.7 It has been averred that offending vehicle was not involved in the accident, however, as per the seizure memo of the offending vehicle, the same was seized on the same day from the spot of accident and as per mechanical inspection report, it has fresh damages on the front portion. Thus, clearly, the accident has been caused by the offending vehicle by hitting the e- rickshaw from back side.
7.8 Further, it has come in the cross-examination of PW-1 (on the question put by Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3 and adopted by Ld. Counsel for respondent no.2) that the place of accident was a crowded place. Also it is not disputed that the e- rickshaw in which petitioner was traveling was stationary at the time of accident and in front of the Bus Stop. As per mechanical inspection report on record, the offending vehicle has fresh damages on front side and the e-rickshaw has fresh damages on back side and other parts. Thus, the manner of accident in the circumstances discussed above clearly show that the accident Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.12 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21 17:19:22
+0530
happened due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 (Res Ipsa Loquitur). The nature of impact on the offending vehicle and as revealed in the mechanical inspection report itself shows that the offending vehicle was driven at a high speed. Since, it was a crowded place, the offending vehicle should have been driven at a slow speed and cautiously.
7.9 Even otherwise, respondent no.01/driver was the best witness who could have rebutted the case of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and could have thrown some light as to how and under what circumstances, the accident in question took place. However, respondent no.01/driver has chosen not to step into the witness box during the course of inquiry. In the given circumstances, adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him, to the effect that the accident occurred due to his rash and negligent driving.
7.10 In view of the above discussion and considering the evidence on record, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the claimant has on the scale of preponderance of probabilities proved that the petitioner sustained injuries in road accident on 26.09.2023 which occurred at about 11:45 AM Near NCC Building, Old Kirti Nagar Police Station Bus Stop within the jurisdiction of PS Kirti Nagar due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing registration number DL1LAF7536 being driven by respondent no.1. Accordingly, issue no.01 is decided in favour of the petitioner.
ISSUE NO. (II) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if yes, of what amount and from whom? OPP.
Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.13 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:19:25 +0530
8.1 In view of the findings on issue no.1, the petitioner
is entitled to get compensation for the injuries suffered by him and the loss suffered by him due to the injuries in the road accident. Before proceeding further to decide the present issue, it would be apposite to encapsulate the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its. Judgment in "Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors." (2011) 1 SCC 343. It was held : -
"General principles relating to compensation in injury cases
4. The provision of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The Court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376, R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467).
5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following :
Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(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 Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.14 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:19:27 +0530
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. Assessment of pecuniary damages under item (i) and under item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses - item (iii) -- depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages - items (iv), (v) and (vi) -- involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decision of this Court and High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability - item (ii)(a). We are concerned with that assessment in this case. Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability.
8.2 In view of the above law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in routine injury cases, award needs to be passed only under heads of medical expenses, loss of earning during treatment period and damages for pain, suffering and trauma. In cases of serious injuries, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the claim/evidence of the claimant, award additionally needs to be passed under the heads of loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability suffered, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (including loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. In light of the above settled law, the amount of compensation to which the petitioner is entitled is determined as under:
MEDICAL EXPENSES 8.3(i) The petitioner has deposed in his examination-in-
chief that he has taken treatment as an outdoor patient at Holy Family Hospital, Okhla Road, New Delhi, for a period of one month and has incurred an expense of Rs. 50,000/- on his Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.15 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:19:29 +0530
medical treatment. The petitioner has relied upon his medical treatment records as Ex.PW1/1(colly) and medical bills as Ex.PW1/2(colly) and medical leave certificate as Ex.PW1/5 on record. The original medical treatment record of the petitioner has also been filed on record. The medical documents relied upon by the petitioner has been verified by the IO and have been filed with the DAR. Further, as per the MLC of the petitioner, the petitioner had suffered some laceration and wounds and also received sutures. The medical treatment record of Holy Family Hospital mentions the history of RTA on 26.09.2023 and pertains to medications and dressing. Thus, the connection of the treatment taken by the petitioner with the injuries sustained in the accident is established. No evidence has been led by respondents to disprove the claim of petitioner. There is no reason to disbelieve the above documents. The total of the medical bills/medicine bills filed by the petitioner comes to Rs.11,238.56/-.
8.3(ii) Hence, injured/petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.11,239/ (after rounding off Rs.11,238.56/-) on account of medical bills/expenses. Accordingly, petitioner is awarded Rs.11,239/- on account of medical expenses. ASSESSMENT OF EXPENSES TOWARDS FUTURE TREATMENT 8.4 Petitioner has not claimed any amount required for future treatment. Petitioner has also not filed any document/medical evidence on record to show that petitioner requires any future treatment, hence, petitioner is not entitled for any amount under this head.
Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.16 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:19:32 +0530
DETERMINATION OF LOSS OF INCOME DURING
TREATMENT PERIOD
8.5(i) It has been stated by the petitioner in his
examination-in-chief that he was working as a Sample Master at Nilesh Creations, Kirti Nagar and was earning Rs. 75,000/- per month. He has deposed that he could not attend his duty from 26.09.2023 to 26.10.2023 due to the injuries sustained in the accident. In support of his testimony, he has relied upon his salary slips for the month of August, 2023, September, 2023 and October, 2023 and attendance sheet as Ex.PW1/3(colly), his medical leave certificate as Ex.PW1/5 and copy of complete set of DAR as Ex.PW1/8 (Colly). The copy of salary slip of the petitioner for the month of August 2023 and the medical leave certificate of the employer of the petitioner has been filed alongwith the DAR and have been verified by the IO. As per the certificate bearing No.AB37341 dt. 25.10.2023 issued by Medical Officer, Holy Family Hospital, New Delhi, the petitioner was unfit for work for the period 26.09.2023 to 30.10.2023 and was declared fit to join duty from 1st Nov. 2023. As per the medical leave certificate issued by the Partner of Nilesh Creations i.e. the employer of the petitioner, the petitioner was on medical leave from 26th September to 26th October. The original attendance record of Nilesh Creations Ex.PW1/3 (Colly) shows that the petitioner has been continuously absent from work from 26.09.2023 uptil 30.10.2023. As per the salary slip of the petitioner for the month of October 2023, the petitioner has attended his office for one day in the month of October, 2023. Since as per the medical treatment record, the petitioner had Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.17 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:19:35 +0530
suffered some wounds and lacerations and had also received sutures and had been visiting the hospital for change of dressings etc., there appears no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the petitioner that he had remained absent from work on account of the injuries sustained in the accident. Even otherwise, no evidence has been led by the respondents to disprove the claim of the petitioner. Nothing favourable to the respondents has come on record in the cross-examination of the petitioner in this regard. The arguments of the counsel for respondent no. 3 that the petitioner could not have suffered any loss of income as he had only received simple injuries, is in the opinion of this Tribunal without any merit. Thus, the petitioner is held entitled to compensation for loss of income for the period 26.09.2023 uptil 30.10.2023.
8.5(ii) As per salary slip for the month of August, 2023, the petitioner was working as Sample Master with Nilesh Creations and was earning Rs.66,750/- per month. As per the salary slip for the month of October, 2023, the petitioner was paid wages of Rs.2500/- for 1 day.
8.5(iii) Accordingly, the monthly income of the injured needs to be considered as Rs.66,750/- per month on the date of accident and per day wage is considered as Rs.2500/-. 8.5(iv) Accordingly, this tribunal grants compensation of sum of Rs.76,750/- [Rs.2500/- x 5 days (for absence from 26.09.2023 to 30.09.2023) + Rs.66,750- Rs.2500/- (for absence of work from 01.10.2023 to 30.10.2023) towards loss of income during treatment period.
Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.18 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:19:38 +0530
PAIN & SUFFERINGS
8.6 Pain & suffering is a non pecuniary loss and cannot
be arithmetically calculated. It is a settled law that while assessing compensation payable to petitioners on account of pain & suffering, special circumstances of claimant have to be taken into account including victim's age, nature of injury, parts of body where injuries occurred, surgeries, if any, duration of hospitalization and treatment, the unusual deprivation suffered by victim and effect thereof on his future life. As per the medical documents of injured on record, the petitioner has suffered simple injuries and has remained under treatment for around one month. In view of the same, the petitioner is held entitled for a compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner.
SPECIAL DIET 8.7 The nature of injuries and treatment undergone by the injured has already been discussed in the foregoing part of the judgment. Thus, considering the same, this Tribunal deems it fit to grant compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards expenses incurred on special diet.
ATTENDANT CHARGES 8.8 Considering the nature of injuries suffered by petitioner and the period of treatment undergone, which have already been discussed in the foregoing part of this award, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner must have required the assistance of some attendant may be that of his family members atleast for sometime and during visits to hospitals for dressing etc. It is a settled law that for grant of compensation for attendant charges, the necessity of employment of the attendant is not Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.19 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:19:41 +0530
required and the petitioner is required to be compensated even for value of services of his family members. (refer: DTC & Ors. vs. Lalita, 1983 ACJ 253). Accordingly, this Tribunal deems it appropriate to grant a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges.
CONVEYANCE CHARGES 8.9 Though there is no cogent evidence on record of money spent by the petitioner upon conveyance, yet considering the nature of injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner and treatment taken by him, this Tribunal grants compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards expenses incurred on conveyance.
THE TOTAL COMPENSATION AWARDED TO THE PETITIONER IS AS UNDER:-
S.No. Heads of Compensation Amount in Rupees
1. Reimbursement of medical Rs.11,239/-
expenses
2. Compensation on account of NIL future treatment
3. Loss of Income during Rs.76,750/-
treatment period
4. Pain and Suffering Rs.30,000/-
5. Special Diet Rs.10,000/-
6. Attendant charges Rs.10,000/-
7. Conveyance Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs. 1,47,989/-
9. In view of the above discussions, the petitioner is held entitled to a compensation amount of Rs.1,47,989/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty Nine Only).
LIABILITY :
10.1 It is contended by the respondent no.3 Insurance Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.20 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21 17:19:44
+0530
Company that driver/respondent no.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of incident. The respondent no.3 has examined Sh. Suryansh Dixit, Legal Manager as R3W1.
He has exhibited copy of insurance policy as Ex. R3W1/1(colly), legal notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC as Ex.R3W1/2 and postal receipts as Ex.R3W1/3 & Ex.R3W1/4 in his evidence. R3W1 has deposed that the notice U/o 12 Rule 8 CPC has not been replied by the respondent no. 1 & 2. The testimony of R3W1 has remained unrebutted.
10.2 Section 3/181 of the MV Act has been invoked against respondent no.1 in the chargesheet. IO has filed kalandara U/s 5/180 M.V. Act against the respondent no. 2. DAR clearly mentions that the respondent no.1 was driving offending vehicle without license. No driving license has been produced on record by respondents. Therefore, it stands established that the respondent no.1 was not holding any valid driving license to drive the vehicle in question at the time of incident. Hence, it is established on record that respondent no.1 & 2 have violated the terms of the insurance policy. Accordingly, the respondent no. 1 & 2 are held liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner. However, since the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no.3, merely because the accident happened after 01.02.2022, the insurance company cannot be exonerated from its liability to pay the award amount to the petitioner. 10.3 The MV Act is a social welfare legislation enacted amongst other purposes for the benefit of the victim of Road Traffic Accident and for speedy disposal of such cases. A mere glance at the aims and objectives of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.21 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:19:46 +0530
and the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill, 2019 would show that one of the main objective that the act aims to achieve is to ensure expeditious help to accident victim and their families. The act provides compulsory insurance qua third party risk making the insurance company liable to reimburse the insured in case of any liability incurred by him towards third party, arising out of motor vehicle accident involving his vehicle. The act aims at providing compensation to the victim of the accident who have suffered injuries 'grievous or simple' or the loss of their loved ones to ensure that they are able to lead a decent life post accident. Though the compensation awarded to a victim of a accident under the MV Act cannot relegate the person to the same position as he was in, before the accident, yet the financial assistance provided to him in the form of compensation provides some ray of light to him and enables him to lead a decent life post accident. Therefore, it is important to ensure that the compensation to which a victim of an accident is held entitled in the judgment or an award passed by MACT Tribunal, is made available to him without any delay and the victim is not made to run from pillar to post to obtain the same and also does not have to wait for years and years to receive the compensation. Any delay in payment of compensation would amount to rendering the provisions of the MV Act meaningless. It also cannot be lost sight of that where the driver and the owner are the persons with weak financial background, the payment of the compensation to the victim would infact become impossible.
10.4 Recently, a similar issue was raised before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in matter of "ICICI Lombard Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.22 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:19:49 +0530
General Insurance Company Vs. Arti Devi & Ors", First Appeal from order No.1780 of 2024. The Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 31.01.2025 held that the principle of pay & recover would still be applicable. The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced here as under:-
"21. When the language used in sub-Section (4) of Section 149 prior to amendment as replaced by sub- Section (4) of Section 150 by the Amendment Act of 2019, is carefully examined, the words "shall, as respects such liabilities as are required to be covered by a policy under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 147, be of no effect" would only mean that under the circumstances covered by sub-Section (4), either of Section 149 or Section 150, the insurer would be well within its rights to avoid liability flowing from the insurance policy. Meaning thereby that the insurer would be absolved of bearing liability to pay compensation to the claimants. It does not mean that the insurer would also be absolved from its liability to indemnify the owner's risk. Such indemnification will still continue to remain alive and the insurer shall have to first pay the compensation through indemnification and, then, it shall have a right to recover from the owner the amount paid as the ultimate liability shall have to be borne by the owner and not by insurer. In such an event, there would be no financial loss to the insurer as it would be compensated through recovery from the owner. The aforesaid provisions are expressly to give defence to the insurer and have to be read to that extent only and not to interpret as if the liability to indemnify stands washed away. It therefore follows that even if the proviso to sub- Section (4) would not have been there before the amendment, the indemnification concept would have till remained alive and operative and, hence, mere omission of the proviso by the Amendment Act of 2019 would be of no avail.
22. Therefore, when Shri Parihar urges that if, in every case, liability to pay compensation has to be borne by the Insurance Company, there would be no effect of providing grounds for defence either under sub-section (2) of the Act prior to amendment or under sub-section (2) of the Act after amendment, this Court finds no force in the submission. The reason is that providing grounds of defence under the said provisions would be read so as to give an opportunity to the Insurance Company to avoid passing of award against it, i,e, holding it liable to bear the award. The said liability to have an award against the Insurance Company is distinct from the situation where award is against the owner and insurer is made liable to pay compensation to the claimants and then recover the same from the owner. Non-receipt of premium as required under Section 64(V)B of the Insurance Act, 1938 has now been added in Section 150(2). It reflects that even in a case where premium is not received by the Insurance Company, it can raise a ground of challenge so as to avoid passing of award against it and, in that event also, award would be drawn against the owner. When payment or non-payment of premium is significant after amendment and has been made a ground of defence, the Court Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.23 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21 17:19:51
+0530
observes that a third party risk is covered under the policy which is a contract and premium qua third party risk is received by the insurer in relation to the contract. Therefore, policy continues to subsist to cover third party risk so long the premium is received and non-payment hereof would absolve the Insurance Company from its liability of an award being passed against it. 23-24 xxx
25. The Court cannot overlook an aspect that Section 147(5) of the Act, prior to amendment has been replaced by Section 147(6) of the Act after amendment but there are no qualifying words referable to section 150. Sub-section (6) of section 147 reads as under:-
"(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, an insurer issuing a policy of insurance under this section shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of that person or those classes of persons."
From renumbering of the sub-section, as above, it follows that once the liability to indemnify the person specified in the policy, as per sub-section (6) of Section 147, even after amendment, continues to exist in the Statute book and it excludes applicability of any other law for the time being in force, indemnification by the insurer does not vanish even after amendments incorporated by the Act of 2019. The right to recover the amount paid to the claimants as per conditions mentioned in section 150 would still be available to the insurer as indemnification has not been taken away by the legislature nor has it been explained by adding words to section 147 or anywhere else.
26. This Court also finds that since the contract of insurance is between insurer and the owner and has no concern with the claimants who are in fact victims of the accident, language used in Section 149 (prior to amendment) and Section 150 (after amendment) would show that notwithstanding the fact that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel the policy on account of breach of terms thereof, it shall pay to the person entitled to the benefit of the award. Therefore, whether Insurance Company cancels or does not cancel an insurance policy, the same has nothing to do with the claimants and they are entitled to get the amount from insurer. It means that claimants' right to receive compensation from the insurer at the first instance is unaffected by the inter-se rights and liabilities arising out of contract between the insurer and the owner.
27. Words "no sum shall be payable by the insurer under sub- ection (1)" used either in Section 149 of the Act of 1988 (prior to amendment) in Section 150 (after amendment) would mean that if the grounds of defence set-forth in sub-section (2) of Section 149 or Section 150, as the case may be, exist, no sum shall be payable by the insurer. It does not mean that the sum shall not be paid by the insurer if the award contains a direction to the insurer to pay and recover. Liability to pay the amount has to be segregated from actual payment made by the insurer in case of survival and existence of insurance policy issued under Section 147 of the Act. Word "liability" has to be understood as the "final liability to bear the award for all time to come" separate from concept of indemnification by the insurer by making immediate payment.
28. xxx Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.24 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:19:54 +0530
29. Therefore, when the provisions of the Act of 1988 are read with C.P.C., it becomes clear that as soon as an award is passed, the claimants become entitled to get the amount of compensation and they get financial relief even during the pendency of the appeal filed by the insurer.
30. xxx
31. A bare perusal of clause 2 read with clause 5 (b) and clause 51 reflects that the intention of the legislature was never to withdraw protection and reliefs as regards compensation ensured by the previous existing provisions. Rather, the Bill strives more towards ensuring expeditious help to the accident victims and their families. The emotional and social trauma caused to the family which loses its bread winner, is still one of the special considerations as set forth in the Statement above, The Bill was brought with an object to replace the existing provisions of insurance with simplified provisions in order to provide expeditious help to accident victims and their families. There is nothing in the Statement of Objects and Reasons which may, either directly or indirectly, infer withdrawal of insurer's liability to pay compensation as soon as the award is declared, even in case of occurrence of breach of policy or other existence of similar grounds of defence available to the insurer. Therefore, the purpose behind bringing amendments in the Act of 1988 was clearly to provide immediate financial help to the accident victims and their dependents and not to create a situation where they are made to run from pillar to post even after an award is declared in their favour.
32-37. xxx
38. 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 vs. Swaran Singh and others, JT 2004 (1) SC 109 has not lost its significance and binding effect despite omission of proviso. Held accordingly."
Emphasis supplied.
10.5 From the above discussions, it is clear that the exonerating the insurance company from the liability to pay the compensation to the petitioner would render award meaningless and would be against the benevolent provisions of the MV Act. 10.6 It would be also apposite to mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in matter of "United India Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.25 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:19:56 +0530
General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Santro Devi & Ors" (2009) 1 SCC 558 has observed as under:-
"14. The provisions of compulsory insurance have been framed to advance a social object. It is in a way part of the social justice doctrine. When a certificate of insurance is issued, in law, the insurance company is bound to reimburse the owner. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that a contract of insurance must fulfill the statutory requirements of formation of a valid contract but in case of a third party risk, the question has to be considered from a different angle. It was further held that Section 146 of the Act gives complete protection to third party in respect of or bodily injury or damage to the property while using the vehicle in public place. For that purpose, insurance of the vehicle has been made compulsory to the vehicle or to the owner. This would further reflect that compulsory insurance is obviously for the benefit of Thirty party..."
10.7 It is also pertinent to note that in the judgment in "National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh & Ors", a question of law pertaining to interpretation of Section 149(2)(a)
(ii) vis a vis the proviso to sub-section 4 & 5 of the said Section of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, as it then existed, was raised before Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was argued on behalf of the insurance company that the defences provided in Section 149(2) must be allowed to be invoked by the insurer to its full effect and once the defence is proved, the Tribunal should be bound to discharge the insurer and affix the liability only on the owner and driver of the offending vehicle without any directions to pay the award amount and recover the same from the owner. The hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment while referring to Section 149(1) of the MV Act as it then existed (now Section 150(1) of the MV Act as amended by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 adopted a liberal approach to protect the rights of third party and held that even if, the insurance company is able to establish its defence under Section 149(2) of the MV Act, the insurance company would be liable to satisfy the decree with the Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.26 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:19:58 +0530
right to recover the same from the owner. It was held that the liability of the insurer arises from the contract as well as the statute and therefore, it would not be proper to apply the rules of interpretation of contract in interpreting a statute. It was held by the Hon'ble Court:-
"Proviso appended to sub-section (4) of Section 149 is referable only to sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act. It is an independent provision and must be read in the context of Section 96(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Furthermore, it is one thing to say that the insurer will be entitled to avoid its liability owing to breach of terms of a contract of insurance but it is another thing to say that the vehicle is not insured at all. If the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, the same would render the proviso to sub-section (4) as well as sub-section (5) of Section 149 of the Act otiose, nor any effective meaning can be attributed to the liability clause of the insurance company contained in sub-section (1). The decision in Kamla's case (supra) has to be read in the aforementioned context.
Sub-section (5) of Section 149 which imposes a liability on the insurer must also be given its full effect. The insurance company may not be liable to satisfy the decree and, therefore, its liability may be zero but it does mean that it did not have initial liability at all. Thus, if the insurance company is made liable to pay any amount, it can recover the entire amount paid to the third party on behalf of the assured. If this interpretation is not given to the beneficent provisions of the Act having regard to its purport and object, we fail to see a situation where beneficent provisions can be given effect to. Sub-section (7) of Section 149 of the Act, to which pointed attention of the Court has been drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which is in negative language may now be noticed. The said provision must be read with sub- section (1) thereof. The right to avoid liability in terms of sub- section (2) of Section 149 is restricted as has been discussed hereinbefore. It is one thing to say that the insurance companies are entitled to raise a defence but it is another thing to say that despite the fact that its defence has been accepted having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has power to direct them to satisfy the decree at the first instance and then direct recovery of the same from the owner. These two matters stand apart and require contextual reading."
10.8 Section 149(1) of the MV Act, 1988 (as it existed prior to the Motor Vehicles (Amendment), Act 2019) has now been renumbered as Section 150(1) of the MV Act 1988 (as amended by Motor Vehicles (Amendment), Act 2019) and thus, the said provision in its letter and spirit still exists on the statute Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.27 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21 17:20:01
+0530
book, and, therefore, the judgment in Swaran Singh (supra) is still binding upon this Tribunal.
10.9 It would also be apposite to reproduce the following findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swaran Singh (supra):-
"The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these petitions are as follows:-
"(i) Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 providing compulsory insurance of vehicles against third party risks is a social welfare legislation to extend relief by compensation to victims of accidents caused by use of motor vehicles. The provisions of compulsory insurance coverage of all vehicles are with this paramount object and the provisions of the Act have to be so interpreted as to effectuate the said object.
(ii) Insurer is entitled to raise a defence in a claim petition filed under Section 163 A or Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 inter alia in terms of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the said Act.
(iii)-(vii). Xxx
(viii) If a vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a person having a learner's licence, the insurance companies would be liable to satisfy the decree.
(ix) The claims tribunal constituted under Section 165 read with Section 168 is empowered to adjudicate all claims in respect of the accidents involving death or of bodily injury or damage to property of third party arising in use of motor vehicle. The said power of the tribunal is not restricted to decide the claims inter se between claimant or claimants on one side and insured, insurer and driver on the other. In the course of adjudicating the claim for compensation and to decide the availability of defence or defences to the insurer, the Tribunal has necessarily the power and jurisdiction to decide disputes inter se between insurer and the insured. The decision rendered on the claims and disputes inter se between the insurer and insured in the course of adjudication of claim for compensation by the claimants and the award made thereon is enforceable and executable in the same manner as provided in Section 174 of the Act for enforcement and execution of the award in favour of the claimants.
(x) Where on adjudication of the claim under the Act the tribunal arrives at a conclusion that the insurer has satisfactorily proved its defence in accordance with the provisions of section 149(2) read with sub-section (7), as interpreted by this Court above, the Tribunal can direct that the insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the insured for the compensation and other amounts which it has been compelled to pay to the third party under the award of the tribunal. Such determination of claim by the Tribunal will be enforceable and the money found due to the insurer from the insured will be recoverable on a certificate issued by the tribunal to the Collector in the same manner under Section 174 of the Act as arrears of land revenue. The certificate will be issued for the recovery as arrears of land revenue only if, as required by sub-
section (3) of Section 168 of the Act the insured fails to deposit the amount awarded in favour of the insurer within thirty days from Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.28 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21 17:20:03 +0530
the date of announcement of the award by the tribunal.
(xi) The provisions contained in sub-section (4) with proviso thereunder and sub-section (5) which are intended to cover specified contingencies mentioned therein to enable the insurer to recover amount paid under the contract of insurance on behalf of the insured can be taken recourse of by the Tribunal and be extended to claims and defences of insurer against insured by relegating them to the remedy before regular court in cases where on given facts and circumstances adjudication of their claims inter se might delay the adjudication of the claims of the victims."
10.10 Thus, even in cases where the insurance company has been able to make out a defence as per the provision of 149(2) [now Section 150(2)], the insurance company has been held liable to pay the compensation amount and recover the same from the insured.
10.11 In view of the foregoing discussion, the binding precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Section 150 sub- section 1 & 5 of the MV Act, 1988, Section 147(6) of the MV Act, 1988 and the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited (supra), the principle of pay & recover would still be applicable to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the insurance company is held liable to pay compensation to the petitioners as a valid policy was effective on the date of the accident and shall also be entitled to recover the said amount from the insured as per contract between them. Hence, insurance company is directed to deposit the award amount in favour of the petitioners. RELIEF:-
11. In view of the above discussion and findings on issues, this Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.1,47,989/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty Nine Only). along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the DAR i.e.16.03.2024 till the Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.29 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:20:05 +0530
date of the payment of the award amount to be paid by the respondent No.3/Insurance Company. Respondent no.3/Insurance Company is hereby directed to deposit the award amount in favour of the petitioner(s) with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in MACT Account of this Tribunal having Account No.40711767202, CIF No.90891362578, IFSC Code - SBIN0000726, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of this award together with the interest as stated herein above under intimation to this Tribunal and under intimation to the petitioner. In case of any delay, it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
DISBURSEMENT OF AWARD AMOUNT
12. Statement of the petitioner in terms of provisions of MCTAP was recorded on 16.02.2026. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the said statement, it is hereby ordered that entire award amount along with interest accrued shall be released to the petitioner through his saving bank account bearing No. 44152049648 maintained with SBI Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi, IFSC Code:
SBIN0000726.
13. Concerned Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts Branch is directed to transfer the award amount, in the above-mentioned manner, as per award in the saving bank account of claimant/petitioner, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
14. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph, specimen signature, copy of bank passbook and copy of residence proof of the petitioner, be sent to Nodal Officer of State Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.30 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:20:07 +0530
Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance.
15. Nazir of this Court shall prepare a separate file regarding the status of deposition/non-deposition of the award amount by the respondent(s) after making necessary entry on CIS on 27.03.2026.
16. A digital copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost through email.
17. Ahlmad staff is directed to send the copy of award to Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority as per the procedure of Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure (MCTAD).
18. Ahlmad staff is also 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." decided on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall also e-email an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court Complex Branch for information.
19. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court on 20th of February, 2026 (GUNJAN GUPTA) District Judge-cum-PO:MACT-01, West/THC/Delhi/20.02.2026 Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.31 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:20:10 +0530
FORM-XVI
SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE
1. Date of accident : 26.09.2023
2. Name of the injured : Rajender Prasad @ Rajesh Kumar Sutar
3. Age of the injured : DOB: 1981
4. Occupation of the injured: Sample Master
5. Income of the injured : Rs.66,750/-
6. Nature of injury : Simple
7. Medical treatment taken : 26.09.2023 till 31.10.2023
8. Period of Hospitalization : None
9. Whether any permanent disability ? : No If yes, give details :
10. Computation of Compensation S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss :-
(I) Expenditure on Rs.11,239/-
treatment
(ii) Expenditure on Rs.10,000/-
conveyance
(iii) Expenditure on special Rs.10,000/-
diet
(iv) Cost of Rs.10,000/-
nursing/attendant
(v) Loss of earning capacity Nil
(vi) Loss of Income Rs.76,750/-
(loss of earning during
treatment period)
(vii) Any other loss which Nil
may require any special
treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his
life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss :-
(i) Compensation for NIL
mental and physical
shock
Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.32 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:20:12 +0530
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.30,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life NA
(iv) Dis-figuration NA
(v) Loss of marriage NA
prospects
(vi) Loss of earning, NA
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 NIL
assessed and nature of
disability as permanent
or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or NA
loss of expectation of
life span on account of
disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of NA
earning capacity in
relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - NA
(Income x% Earning
Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL Rs.1,47,989/-
COMPENSATION
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9% per annum
16. Interest amount up to Rs.25,676/-
the date of award (w.e.f.16.03.2024 to
20.02.2026 i.e. 1 year 11
months and 4 days)
17. TOTAL AMOUNT Rs.1,73,665/-
INCLUDING (Rs.1,47,989/- +
INTEREST Rs.25,676/-)
18. Award amount released Entire award amount +
interest accrued
19. Award amount kept in Nil
FDRs
Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.33 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21 17:20:14
+0530
20. Mode of disbursement Mentioned in the award
of the award amount to
the claimant (s).
21. Next date for 27.03.2026
compliance of the
award.
(GUNJAN GUPTA)
District Judge-cum-PO:MACT-01,
West/THC/Delhi/20.02.2026
Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.34 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:20:17 +0530