Delhi District Court
Sandeep Rawat vs Manoj Tiwari on 19 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUDEEP RAJ SAINI
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL02
SOUTHWEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:
Sandeep Rawat vs. Manoj Tiwari & Ors.
MACT No. 101/2021
Sandeep Rawat
R/o H. No. 107, Khasra No. 617/2
XBlock, Shyam Vihar, Phase1, Najafgarh
SouthWest Delhi, Delhi110043.
....Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Manoj Tiwari (Driver)
S/o Sh. Maharaj Tiwari
R/o H No. 382, Gali No. 3
Shamshanghat Road, Bijwasan, New Delhi.
2. Spicejet Limited (Owner)
Plot No. 319, Udyog Vihar
Phase4, Gurgaon, Haryana122015
3. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. (Insurer)
Registered office:
15th Floor, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park,
Ganpatrao Kadam Marg,Off Senapati Bapat Marg,
Lower Parel, Mumbai400013
...Respondents
Date of institution : 05.02.2021
Date of concluding arguments : 19.03.2025
Date of decision : 19.03.2025
MACT No. 101/2021 Sandeep Rawat Vs. Manoj Tiwari & Ors. Page No. 1 of 27
AWARD
1. The present Detailed Accident Report (hereafter "DAR") was filed by the investigating officer ASI Shamsher Singh in FIR number 460/2020 dated 16.09.2020 lodged at police station Dwarka North under sections 279/337 IPC regarding injuries suffered by the petitioner Sh. Sandeep Rawat in a road accident. The DAR was treated as a claim petition under section 166(4) of the M V Act, 1988 (hereafter "M V Act").The respondent no. 1 Sh. Manoj Tiwari is the driver and the respondent no. 2 Spicejet Ltd. is the owner of the alleged offending vehicle bearing registration no. HR 26CZ 2671.The respondent no. 3, Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited, is the insurer of the said vehicle.
DAR
2. As per the claims made in the DAR, the petitioner, a resident of Shyam Vihar Phase1, Najafgarh, was employed in a private job. On 16.09.2020 at about 09.45 am, the petitioner, was going to his office in Connaught Place from his home on his motorcycle bearing registration no. DL 9SAG 4059. When he reached near pillar no. 810, Dwarka Metro Station, one silver colour Maruti Ertiga, being driven at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, came from the side of old Palam Road, Najafgarh, and hit his motorcycle. Due to the impact, the petitioner fell on the road with his motorcycle and received injuries in his left leg. The fall of the petitioner had obstructed the road due to which the driver of the offending vehicle stopped his vehicle, got down and saw the petitioner. Public persons moved the petitioner on the side of the road, thereby clearing the road. The driver of the offending vehicle then fled from the spot with the said vehicle. The MACT No. 101/2021 Sandeep Rawat Vs. Manoj Tiwari & Ors. Page No. 2 of 27 petitioner could not note down the number of the offending vehicle, Someone from the public called the police about the accident. The PCR vehicle arrived at the scene and the petitioner was removed to DDU Hospital, where he received treatment. Video footage from the CCTV cameras near the site of accident showed the driver of the offending vehicle getting down from his vehicle before fleeing. The footage also showed that the driver was wearing, around his neck, an identity card resembling the one worn by Spicejet employees, which helped in tracing him and the offending vehicle. The video footage on being zoomed, frame by frame, revealed that the offending vehicle had the registration number HR 26 CZ 2671. The offending vehicle was registered in the name of respondent no. 2. The respondent no. 2 was served a notice under section 133 of MV Act. One Sh. Vijay Kumar Roy replied to the legal notice on behalf of respondent no. 2. In the reply to the said notice, Sh. Vijay Kumar Roy stated that he was travelling in the offending vehicle at the time of accident and that the said vehicle was being driven by respondent no. 1. During investigation, on obtaining opinion of the doctor on MLC no. 7392/20, the injuries suffered by the petitioner in the accident were found grievous so the offence u/s 279/337 was converted into 279/338 IPC.
Defence of the Respondents
3. Notice of the DAR was served on the respondents. The respondents have not filed written statement.
4. The following issues were framed:
(1) Whether petitioner Sh. Sandeep Rawat sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 16.09.2020 due to rash and negligent driving of a vehicle bearing registration no. HR 26CZ 2671 being driven by MACT No. 101/2021 Sandeep Rawat Vs. Manoj Tiwari & Ors. Page No. 3 of 27 respondent no. 1 Sh. Manoj Tiwari and owned by respondent no. 2 Spicejet Ltd.? OPP.
(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom? OPP.
(3) Relief.
5. In order to prove his claim, the petitioner examined himself as PW1 and filed his evidence by way of affidavit and the same is Ex. PW1/A. The petitioner deposed that on 16.09.2020, he was going to his office at Connaught Place from his home, on his motorcycle bearing registration no. DL 9SAG 4059. When he reached near pillar no. 810, Dwarka Metro Station, one silver colour Maruti Ertiga coming from old Palam Road and going towards Najafgarh, being driven at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, hit his motorcycle. Due to the impact, he fell down on the road and received grievous injuries. The driver of the offending vehicle got down and watched the petitioner. Public gathered and the driver of the offending vehicle fled from the spot with the offending vehicle. He could not note down the number of the offending vehicle. He further deposed that after the accident he was taken to DDU Hospital, New Delhi for treatment.
PW1 has relied upon following documents in support of his testimony:
Ex. PW1/1 (colly) is copy of MLC.
Ex. PW1/2 (colly) is the copy of treatment record/OPD Card of petitioner from DDU Hospital.
Ex. PW1/3 (colly) is the copy of treatment record/medical prescription of petitioner from Venkateshwar Hospital. Ex. PW1/4 are medical bills/ prescriptions. Ex. PW1/6 (colly) is copy of appointment letter dated 01.12.2016 issued by Brady Services Private Limited.
Ex. PW1/7 (colly) are copies of bills of a mattress and water bottles.
MACT No. 101/2021 Sandeep Rawat Vs. Manoj Tiwari & Ors. Page No. 4 of 27 Ex. PW1/8 is the copy of the class X marksheet of the petitioner. Ex. PW1/10 is the copy of the graduation degree of the petitioner.
6. The disability of the petitioner was assessed by the Medical Board of Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, Delhi, in compliance of order dated 13.09.2021 of my ld. predecessor.
7. The petitioner examined Dr. Ahmer Zafar as PW2. PW2 deposed that he was one of the members of the disability board which assessed the disability of the petitioner and proved the disability certificate dated 20.12.2021 issued to the petitioner. Copy of the same is Ex. PW2/1.
8. The petitioner, in order to prove his income and employment, examined one Sh. Bipin Kumar Mallik, Manager (HR) of Brady Services Private Limited as PW3.
9. The respondents have not led any evidence.
10. I have heard ld. counsels Sh. Manjeet Singh for the petitioner and Ms. Sunanda Nimisha for the respondent no. 3. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by them. I have also perused the record. My issuewise findings are as under:
Issue No. 1:
Whether petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 16.09.2020 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration no. HR 26CZ 2671 being driven by respondent no. 1 Sh. Manoj Tiwari and owned by respondent no. 2 Spicejet Ltd.? OPP.
11. Onus to prove this issue was on the petitioner. The petitioner has relied on his own testimony as well as the DAR to prove this issue.
MACT No. 101/2021 Sandeep Rawat Vs. Manoj Tiwari & Ors. Page No. 5 of 27
12. At this stage, it will be worth to take a brief look at the legal position regarding the standard of proof required to be met by the petitioner, in an accident case, before a claims tribunal.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bimla Devi and Others vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Others (2009) 13 SCC 530 has held:
"15.In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both the parties."
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mangla Ram vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others(2018) 5 Supreme Court Cases 656 has laid down in paragraphs 27 & 28:
"27. ...This Court in a recent decision in Dulcina Fernandes, noted that the key of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle as set up by the claimants was required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Suffice it to observe that the exposition in the judgments already adverted to by us, filing of chargesheet against Respondent 2 prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. Further, even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, this Court opined that the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal.
28. Reliance placed upon the decisions in Minu B. Mehta and Meena Variyal, by the respondents, in our opinion, is of no avail. The dictum in these cases is on the matter in issue in the case concerned. Similarly, even the dictum in Surender Kumar Arora will be of no avail. In the present case, considering the entirety of the pleadings, evidence and circumstances on record and in MACT No. 101/2021 Sandeep Rawat Vs. Manoj Tiwari & Ors. Page No. 6 of 27 particular the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the factum of negligence of Respondent 2, the driver of the offending jeep, the High Court committed manifest error in taking a contrary view which, in our opinion, is an error apparent on the face of record and manifestly wrong."
15. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Smt. Pushpa Rana & Ors.2008 (101) DRJ 645 has held:
"12. The last contention of the appellant insurance company is that the respondents claimants should have proved negligence on the part of the driver and in this regard the counsel has placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal; 2007 (5) SCALE
269. On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the wife of the deceased had produced (i) certified copy of the criminal record of criminal case in FIR No. 955/2004, pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle, (ii) criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of charge sheet under Section 279/304A,IPC against the driver; (iii) certified copy of FIR, wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of the deceased. These documents are sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent. Proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Hence, this contention of the counsel for the appellant also falls face down. There is ample evidence on record to prove negligence on the part of the driver."
16. It is clear from the above discussed authoritative pronouncements that in a claim petition under MV Act, strict proof of an accident caused by particular vehicle in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the petitioner. The petitioner is merely to establish his case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. Filing of chargesheet against MACT No. 101/2021 Sandeep Rawat Vs. Manoj Tiwari & Ors. Page No. 7 of 27 the driver prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. Further, even if the driver were to be acquitted in the criminal case, the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal. The Tribunal must take a holistic view of the matter.
17. In the present case, the accident took place on 16.09.2020 and the FIR was lodged on the same day, therefore, there was no delay in lodging of the FIR. On completion of investigation, the police filed the chargesheet against the respondent no. 1 under sections 279/338 IPC showing the involvement of offending vehicle bearing registration no. HR 26CZ 2671 owned by the respondent no. 2. The arrest memo dated 01.10.2020 shows that the respondent no. 1 was arrested in the criminal case related to the accident.
In the criminal case related to the accident, Cr. Case no. 2378/2021 titled State vs. Manoj Tiwari, the court of the ld. MM-06, South West District, Dwarka, vide order dated 01.07.2023, has framed charges against the respondent no. 1 under sections 279/338 IPC.
The respondents have not denied negligence on the part of respondent no. 1 either by filing written statement or by entering the witness box.
The testimony of the petitioner regarding the accident is consistent and has withstood the test of crossexamination.
The respondent no. 2 was issued a notice under section 133, MV Act. Sh. Vijay Kumar Roy, an employee of the legal department of the respondent no. 2, in the reply to the said notice admitted that at the time of accident he was present in the offending vehicle bearing registration no. HR 26CZ 2671 and that the said vehicle was being driven by the respondent no.1.
MACT No. 101/2021 Sandeep Rawat Vs. Manoj Tiwari & Ors. Page No. 8 of 27 The mechanical inspection reports dated 05.10.2020, of the offending vehicle and of the motorcycle of the petitioner, show that these vehicles suffered damage in the accident.
The medical evidence on record further provides credence to the DAR. The MLC no. 7392 (Ex. PW1/1) and the corresponding OPD Card (Ex. PW1/2) of the petitioner show that he suffered grievous injuries in a road accident and that he was brought to Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, New Delhi in a PCR, for treatment.
The various prescriptions of the DDU Hospital and of Venkateshwar Hospital (Ex. PW-1/3) show that the petitioner was under treatment for a long time.
18. In view of the above discussion and taking a holistic view, it stands proved on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities that the accident in question was caused due to rash and negligent driving of motor vehicle bearing registration no. HR 26CZ 2671 by respondent no.1 thereby causing grievous injuries to the petitioner Sh. Sandeep Rawat. Issue no. 1 is therefore decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
Issue No. 2:
Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom? OPP.
19. Onus to prove this issue was on the petitioner. In view of finding on issue number 1, the petitioner is held entitled to compensation for the grievous injury and the resultant permanent physical disability suffered by him in the road accident.
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr.
MACT No. 101/2021 Sandeep Rawat Vs. Manoj Tiwari & Ors. Page No. 9 of 27 (2011) 1 SCC 343 has laid down the general principles relating to compensation in injury cases and held:
"6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Nonpecuniary 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."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court also laid down the principles regarding assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability:
"19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above:
(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.
(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that the percentage of loss of MACT No. 101/2021 Sandeep Rawat Vs. Manoj Tiwari & Ors. Page No. 10 of 27 earning capacity is the same as the percentage of permanent disability).
(iii) The doctor who treated an injured claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard to the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety.
(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors."
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rekha Jain vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. MANU/SC/0773/2013, while dealing with the case of a 24 years old model and actress, who had suffered grievous injuries on her face and parts of her body held as follows:
"38. For a film actress, the physical appearance particularly the facial features are very important to act in the films and in T.V. serials. It is in her evidence that on account of the accident her face was disfigured, she has put on weight and has become fat and therefore she is unable to perform the role as an actress in films in future. Having regard to the nature of vocation she has been carrying on and wishes to carry on with in future, the opportunity is lost on account of the disfigurement of her face, to act in the films as an actress either as a heroine or actress in supporting role or any other role to be played in T.V. serials, albums and also as a model. It is in the evidence of the Appellant that as per the District Medical Board of Sambalpur, her permanent disability is 30%. Having regard to the nature of injuries and observations made by this Court and Karnataka High Court in the cases referred to supra, we have to record a finding of fact that the Appellant's permanent disability should be treated as 100% functional disablement as she cannot act in the films and in T.V. serials in future at all. Therefore, on account of the aforesaid reasons, she has suffered functional disability..."
22. It is clear from the above discussed authoritative pronouncements that the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage MACT No. 101/2021 Sandeep Rawat Vs. Manoj Tiwari & Ors. Page No. 11 of 27 of permanent disability. The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors.
Pecuniary damages (Special damages) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure
23. The petitioner, in his evidence by way of affidavit, has claimed that he incurred expenses of Rs. 85,730/on medical bills (Ex. PW1/4). Ld. counsel for insurance company has opposed the same on the ground that the petitioner has submitted inflated bills some of which are not even backed by any prescription.
Ld. counsel of the petitioner retotalled the said medical bills and arrived at a figure of Rs. 82,149/- and not Rs. 85,730/-.
Out of the bills relied on by the petitioner, 17 (seventeen) bills amounting to Rs. 8,500/- are for "home dressing charges". These bills are hand-written and state that the payment has been made in cash by the petitioner. These bills do not state the name of the payee, the stamp on these is undecipherable and these do not bear any serial number. Even though these bills purportedly are of various dates, the hand writing as well as the pen used in preparing these bills appears to be the same, even to an untrained eye. For these reasons, these bills cannot be relied upon.
The petitioner is also relying on debit card receipts amounting to Rs. 3,690/. Admittedly, the bills corresponding to these receipts are not with the petitioner. In absence of the corresponding bills, it cannot be held that this amount was spent on medicines and treatment.
MACT No. 101/2021 Sandeep Rawat Vs. Manoj Tiwari & Ors. Page No. 12 of 27 The petitioner is further relying on physiotherapy bills of Rs. 30,000/-. However, physiotherapy has not been prescribed on any of the prescriptions produced by the petitioner. The petitioner did not examine either the doctor treating him or the physiotherapist, despite having ample opportunity. In absence of a prescription and non-examination of the treating doctor & physiotherapist, the physiotherapy bills cannot be relied upon.
Subtracting the said amounts of Rs. 8,500, Rs. 3,690 and Rs. 30,000/- from Rs. 82,149/- equals Rs. 39,959/- [Rs. 82149 - (Rs. 8500 + Rs. 3690 + Rs. 30000)= Rs. 39,959].
In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to Rs. 39,959/- towards medicines and treatment.
24. The petitioner, in his evidence by way of affidavit, has claimed that he spent Rs. 45,904/ towards special diet.
Ld. counsel for the insurance company submitted that the bills pertaining to special diet are forged and fabricated. Ld. counsel for the petitioner conceded that he is not relying on bills for special diet amounting to Rs. 45,904/-.
Keeping in view that the petitioner has suffered grievous injuries leading to permanent physical disability he must have incurred expenses on special diet. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to Rs. 10,000/ towards special diet.
25. The petitioner, in his evidence by way of affidavit, has claimed that he spent Rs. 11,835 towards conveyance. Ld. counsel for the insurance company opposed the same on the ground that the petitioner has not produced any bills regarding the same.
Keeping in view that the petitioner has suffered grievous injury in his left leg he must have incurred expenses on conveyance. The sum being claimed MACT No. 101/2021 Sandeep Rawat Vs. Manoj Tiwari & Ors. Page No. 13 of 27 by the petitioner under this head is neither exorbitant nor unreasonable. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to Rs. 11,835/ towards conveyance.
26. The petitioner, in his evidence by way of affidavit, has claimed that he spent Rs. 3,000/ on a mattress recommended by his treating doctor. The petitioner has failed to produce the prescription where it is so prescribed. The petitioner did not examine the doctor treating him who could have deposed regarding the requirement of the said mattress. Instead of a bill, the petitioner has produced the visiting card of "Tarun Traders" along with a hand-written note, without any GST number, stating cash payment. In these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any sum for the said mattress.
27. The petitioner, in his evidence by way of affidavit, has not claimed any specific sum as attendant charges. The petitioner has not provided any proof regarding hiring of any attendant.
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. Vs. Kumari Lalita 1982 SCC Online Delhi 123 has held that the victim cannot be deprived of compensation towards gratuitous service rendered by some family members for the benefit of tortfeasor. Therefore, a sum of Rs. 10,000/ is granted to the petitioner towards attendant charges.
Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured Loss of earning during the period of treatment
28. The petitioner, in his evidence by way of affidavit, has claimed that at the time of accident he was working as Private Secretary at Brady Services Private Limited and was being paid Rs. 28,000/ per month. His appointment letter dated 01.12.2016 is Ex. PW1/6. The petitioner also examined, as PW3, Sh. Bipin Kumar Mallik, Manager MACT No. 101/2021 Sandeep Rawat Vs. Manoj Tiwari & Ors. Page No. 14 of 27 (HR) of Brady Services Private Limited. The said Sh. Mallik, in his cross examination, admitted that the petitioner last worked with Brady Services on 29.05.2019. Sh. Mallik further admitted that the petitioner stopped coming to office without any intimation.
The petitioner had further claimed, in his crossexamination, that he was being paid his salary by NEFT. However, the petitioner has not produced his bank account statement showing the deposit of salary, despite having ample opportunity to do so.
In view of the said admission of Sh. Mallik and nonproduction of the bank account by the petitioner, this Tribunal is of the view that the petitioner has failed to prove his employment with Brady Services on 16.09.2020, that is, the day of the accident. The testimony of Mr. Mallik shows that the petitioner had left his job on 29.05.2019 itself.
29. The petitioner is a graduate and copy of his graduation degree is Ex. PW1/10. Considering that the petitioner is a resident of Delhi and has failed to prove his income, the same is to be assessed as per Minimum Wages Act, 1948, as applicable to Delhi. As per the said Act, the minimum wages payable in Delhi to a graduate on 16.09.2020 (the date of accident) was Rs. 20,196/ per month. The same is taken to be the income of the petitioner (A).
30. The age of the petitioner, in accordance with his class 10 th marksheet (Ex. PW1/8), is taken to be 42 years at the time of the accident.
31. In the present case, the accident occurred on 16.09.2020 and the last prescription is dated 10.03.2021 from Ortho Care Hospital. In view of the same, it is presumed that it would have taken him around six months to recover from his injuries. The petitioner is therefore entitled to Rs. 20,196/ MACT No. 101/2021 Sandeep Rawat Vs. Manoj Tiwari & Ors. Page No. 15 of 27 x 06 = Rs. 1,21,176/ towards loss of earning during the period of treatment. Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability
32. As per the disability certificate dated 20.12.2021(Ex. PW-2/1) and the deposition of PW2, the petitioner has suffered permanent physical impairment of 61% (sixty-one percent) in relation to the left lower limb.
33. Bearing in mind that the petitioner is a graduate and his previous employment as a personal secretary in a private company, this Tribunal is of the view, that the permanent physical impairment of 61% in relation to the left lower limb has resulted in 30% loss of earning capacity in his case.
34. As per the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others (2017) 16 SCC 680, the multiplier has to be taken on the basis of the age of the petitioner and for the age group 4145 years, a multiplier of 14 is applicable. The petitioner is also entitled to addition of 25% of the established income towards future prospects since he was above 40 years of age at the time of accident.
35. Loss of future earnings is calculated as follows:
Annual Income before the accident =Rs. 20,196/ x 12 = Rs. 2,42,352/ Future Prospects (addition of 25% of the established income) =Rs. 60,588/ Annual Income including Future Prospects (A) = Rs. 3,02,940/ Loss of Future Earning per annum (30 % of A) = Rs. 90,882/ Multiplier applicable with reference to age = 14 Loss of Future Earnings = Rs. 90,882 / x14 = Rs. 12,72,348/ Future medical expenses
36. No evidence has been led by the petitioner regarding future medical expenses. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any future medical MACT No. 101/2021 Sandeep Rawat Vs. Manoj Tiwari & Ors. Page No. 16 of 27 expenses.
Nonpecuniary damages (General damages) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries
37. The petitioner, in his evidence by way of affidavit, has not claimed any specific sum under the heads "pain and suffering" and "mental and physical shock".
The following factors that are to be taken into account for assessing compensation under the head pain and suffering:
i. Nature of injury ii. Parts of body where injuries occurred iii. Surgeries, if any iv. Confinement in hospital v. Duration of the treatment The accident took place on 16.09.2020 and the petitioner was first treated at DDU Hospital, Delhi. Thereafter, petitioner was treated in The Neo Orthopaedic Clinic and at Ortho Care Hospital. As per the disability certificate dated 20.12.2021, the petitioner has suffered sequelae of fracture tibia left and has a permanent physical disability of 61% in relation to left lower limb. In these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to Rs. 25,000/ towards pain and suffering and Rs. 15,000/ towards mental and physical shock. Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage)
38. The petitioner, in his evidence by way of affidavit, has not claimed any specific sum under the head loss of amenities. The permanent physical disability suffered by the petitioner is likely to affect his overall health, MACT No. 101/2021 Sandeep Rawat Vs. Manoj Tiwari & Ors. Page No. 17 of 27 quality of life and lifestyle and therefore the petitioner is entitled to Rs. 10,000/ towards loss of amenities.
Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity)
39. In the absence of any evidence on record, no case is made out for grant of compensation on account of loss of expectation of life. Other heads claimed by the petitioner:
40. In the absence of any evidence on record, no case is made out for grant of compensation to the petitioner under any other head.
41. The compensation payable under various heads is summarized below:
Serial Heads Amount No. Pecuniary damages (Special damages) 1. Medicines & Treatment Rs. 39,959/ 2. Special Diet Rs. 10,000/ 3. Conveyance Rs. 11,835/ 4. Attendant Charges Rs. 10,000/
5. Loss of Earning during the period of Rs. 1,21,176/ treatment 6 Loss of Future Earnings Rs. 12,72,348/ Nonpecuniary damages (General damages)
7. Pain & Suffering Rs. 25,000/
8. Mental & Physical Shock Rs. 15,000/
9. Loss of amenities of life Rs. 10,000/ Total Rs. 15,15,318/ (rounded off to Rs.
15,15,500/) Liability
42. The respondents no. 1 & 2, being the principal tortfeasors, are primarily liable to make payment of compensation awarded to the petitioner.
MACT No. 101/2021 Sandeep Rawat Vs. Manoj Tiwari & Ors. Page No. 18 of 27 However, since the offending vehicle bearing registration no. HR 26CZ 2671 was insured by respondent no. 3 against third party risks, therefore, the respondent no. 3 is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. The respondent no. 3 has not placed anything on record showing any right to recover against the other respondents. Therefore, the respondent no. 3 (Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd.) shall pay the award amount with interest to the petitioner without any right to recover the same from the respondent no. 1 (Sh. Manoj Tiwari) and respondent no. 2 (Spicejet Limited).
Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
Issue No. 3: Relief
43. In view of findings on issue number 2, the petitioner is held entitled to a sum of Rs. 15,15,500/ (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Fifteen Thousand Five Hundred Only) along with simple interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition that is, 05.02.2021 till the date of compliance that is, 18.04.2025. Thereafter, simple interest @ 12% per annum for delayed payment, if any. The amount of interim award and interest for the suspended period, if any, during the course of this inquiry, shall be excluded from the award amount.
Release
44. As per the provisions of section 168(3) of MV Act, the award amount along with interest shall be deposited/transferred by respondent no.3/Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. in bank account of this Tribunal (Bank Account No. 42709452600 at State Bank of India, District Court Complex, Sector10, Dwarka New Delhi, IFSC Code SBIN0011566 and MICR Code 110002483) by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS within 30 days of award under MACT No. 101/2021 Sandeep Rawat Vs. Manoj Tiwari & Ors. Page No. 19 of 27 intimation to the Nazir of this Tribunal and with notice of deposit to the petitioner and his counsel.
45. The statement of the petitioner regarding his financial status, needs and liabilities has been recorded.
The details of the MACT bank account of the petitioner and the address of the bank with IFSC Code are as follows:
Name Bank Details Sandeep Rawat SB A/C No. 42804436350 at State Bank of India, Branch District Court Complex, Dwarka Sector10, New Delhi. IFSC Code: SBIN0011566
46. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. FAO No. 842/2003 has formulated the Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) scheme vide its order dated 01.05.2018 and implemented the same vide its subsequent orders dated 07.12.2018 and 08.01.2021. As per this scheme, the compensation is to be released to the petitioner in a phased manner.
47. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 16.07.2024 in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Private Ltd. Vs. Union Of India & Ors. Writ Petition (Civil) no. 534/2020 has held:
"9. To clarify the aforesaid position, it is for the Tribunal in a given case to make a decision as to whether the entire amount has to be released or if it is to be released in part. Suffice it is to state that the Tribunal is expected to give its own reasoning while undertaking such an exercise."
48. Keeping in view the quantum of the award, expenses incurred by the MACT No. 101/2021 Sandeep Rawat Vs. Manoj Tiwari & Ors. Page No. 20 of 27 petitioner on medicines, special diet and conveyance, loss of earnings during the period of treatment, twenty five percent (25%) of the award amount be immediately released to the petitioner.
The remaining seventy five percent (75%) of the award amount be kept in the form of 3 yearly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for a period of 1 to 3 years in succession in terms of the aforesaid MACAD scheme.
49. The Manager, State Bank of India, District Court Complex, Sector10, Dwarka New Delhi is directed to comply accordingly. The said Manager is further directed that:
a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the MACT account or fixed deposit account of the petitioner.
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDRs number, FDRs amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the petitioner.
(c) No loan, advance, withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the FDR without permission of this Tribunal.
(d) The bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the petitioner for his MACT account. 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.
50. The FormXVI of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, as per the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) on 08.01.2021 is as under:
MACT No. 101/2021 Sandeep Rawat Vs. Manoj Tiwari & Ors. Page No. 21 of 27 FORMXVI SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident: 16.09.2020
2. Name of injured: Sandeep Rawat
3. Age of the injured: 42 years (at the time of the accident)
4. Occupation of the injured: Personal Secretary in a Private Company(claimed)
5. Income of the injured: Rs. 28,000/ per month ( claimed)
6. Nature of injury: Sequelae of fracture tibia left and has a permanent physical disability of 61% in relation to left lower limb.
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured: DDU Hospital, The New Orthopaedic Clinic and Ortho Care Hospital.
8. Period of hospitalization: Not on record.
9. Whether any permanent disability? Permanent Physical Impairment of 61% in relation to left lower limb.
10. Computation of Compensation S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs. 39,959 /
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs. 11,835/
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 10,000/
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs. 10,000/
(v) Cost of artificial limb Nil.
(vi) Loss of earning capacity Nil.
(vii) Loss of income Rs. 1,21,176/
MACT No. 101/2021 Sandeep Rawat Vs. Manoj Tiwari & Ors. Page No. 22 of 27
(viii) Any other loss which may require any Nil special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life
12. NonPecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and physical Rs. 15,000/ shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs. 25,000/
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 10,000/
(iv) Disfiguration Nil.
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Included in 12(iii) above
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, As above.
hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and 61 % permanent disability in nature of disability as permanent or left lower limb. temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of expectation Included in 12(iii) above of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity 30% in relation of disability
(iv) Loss of future income (Income x % Rs. 12,72,348/ Earning Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 15,15,318/ (rounded off to Rs. 15,15,500/)
15. INTEREST AWARDED Simple interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of institution of the petition (05.02.2021) till the date of compliance (18.04.2025).
MACT No. 101/2021 Sandeep Rawat Vs. Manoj Tiwari & Ors. Page No. 23 of 27 Thereafter, simple interest @ 12% per annum.
16. Interest amount up to the date of award Rs. 4,68,542 /
17. Total amount including interest up to Rs. 19,84,042/ the date of award
18. Award amount released 25%
19. Award amount kept in FDRs 75%
20. Mode of disbursement of the award Account Transfer amount to the claimant(s)
21. Next date for compliance of the award 18.04.2025.
51. The FormXVII of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, as per the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) on 08.01.2021 is as under:
FORMXVII COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of the accident 16.09.2020
2. Date of filing of Form I First Not Filed Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of FormII to the Not Known victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of FormIII from Not Known the Driver
5. Date of receipt of FormIV from the Not Known owner
6. Date of filing of the FormV Not Known MACT No. 101/2021 Sandeep Rawat Vs. Manoj Tiwari & Ors. Page No. 24 of 27 Interim Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of FormVIA and Not Known Form VIB from the Victim (s)
8. Date of filing of FormVII 05.02.2021 Detailed Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or Yes.
deficiency on the part of No action warranted, at this the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction stage, as it is not a case of warranted? prolonged delay.
10. Date of appointment of the Not Known Designated Officer by the Insurance Company.
11. Whether the Designated Officer of No the Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or Not Known deficiencies on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company?If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the claimants(s) Legal offer not filed of the offer of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the award 19.03.2025
15. Whether the claimants(s) was/were Yes directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
MACT No. 101/2021 Sandeep Rawat Vs. Manoj Tiwari & Ors. Page No. 25 of 27
16. Date of order by which 16.02.2024 claimants(s) 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 claimants(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s).
17. Date on which the claimant(s) 23.08.2024 produced the passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of H No. 107, Khasra No. 617/2 the claimant(s) XBlock, Shyam Vihar, Phase1, Najafgarh, SouthWest Delhi, Delhi110043.
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings Yes bank account(s) is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) was/were Yes examined at the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
52. Dasti copy of Award be given to the parties free of cost.
53. Attested copy of Award be sent to the the Manager, SBI, District Courts Complex, Sector10, Dwarka, New Delhi for information/compliance.
54. Copy of Award be also sent to the concerned ld. Judicial Magistrate MACT No. 101/2021 Sandeep Rawat Vs. Manoj Tiwari & Ors. Page No. 26 of 27 and Delhi State Legal Services Authority.
55. Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII as per the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra).
56. Ahlmad is directed to prepare a separate miscellaneous file to be listed on 23.05.2025 for compliance report.
57. File be consigned to the record room after compliance of necessary formalities.
Digitally signed
SUDEEP by SUDEEP RAJ
SAINI
RAJ Date:
SAINI 2025.03.19
15:44:11 +0530
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (SUDEEP RAJ SAINI)
COURT ON 19.03.2025 POMACT02, SOUTHWEST DISTRICT DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI MACT No. 101/2021 Sandeep Rawat Vs. Manoj Tiwari & Ors. Page No. 27 of 27