Delhi District Court
Harkesh vs Rajender Singh Yadav on 8 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SHRI TARUN YOGESH
LD. PO-MACT-01, SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT,
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
MACT No. 389/2019
CNR No. DLSW01-005843-2019
FIR No.186/2019
P.S. Kapashera
In the matter of :
1) Sh. Harkesh Bahadur Singh
S/o Sh. Baijnath Singh
R/o Udhranpur, Post Devopur,
Tehsil Lalganj, District Pratapgarh,
Uttar Pradesh.
Also at: H. No.337,
Namberdar wali gali,
Village Samalkha, New Delhi. ...(Petitioner)
Versus
1) Sh. Rajinder Singh Yadav
S/o Sh. Virender Singh
R/o H. No.113, Near Yadav Hospital
Old Gurgaon Delhi Road,
Village Dunda Hera, Gurgaon,
Haryana.
Also at: V.P.O Saidbhar,
District Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh. .... (Driver)
2) Sh. Manish
S/o Sh. Krishan
R/o H. No.113, V.P.O Dundahera,
Gurgaon, Haryana. .... (Owner)
3) National Insurance Co. Ltd. .... (Insurer)
... Respondents
MACT No.389/2019 Harkesh Vs. Rajender Singh Yadav & Ors. Page 1 of 24
Date of Institution : 03.05.2019
Date of Judgment : 08.09.2025
FORM - V
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE
TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of the accident 19.03.2019
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the Not Available
investigating officer to the Claims Tribunal
(Clause 2)
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the Not Available
investigating officer to the insurance company.
(Clause 2)
4. Date of filing of Report under section 173 Not Available
Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate
(Clause 10)
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information 03.05.2019
Report (DAR) by the investigating Officer
before Claims Tribunal (Clause 10)
6. Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance 03.05.2019
Company (Clause 11)
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant(s). 03.05.2019
(Clause 11)
8. Whether DAR was complete in all respects? Yes
(Clause 16)
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR N/A
removed later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the documents Yes
filed with DAR? (Clause 4)
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on No
the part of the Investigating Officer? If so,
whether any action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer N/A
by the insurance Company (Clause 20)
13. Name, address and contact number of the N/A
MACT No.389/2019 Harkesh Vs. Rajender Singh Yadav & Ors. Page 2 of 24
Designated Officer of the Insurance Company.
(Clause 20)
14. Whether the designated Officer of the Insurance Not Available
Company submitted his report within 30 days
of the DAR? (Clause 20)
15. Whether the insurance company admitted the Not Available
liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer
of the insurance company fairly computed the
compensation in accordance with law. (Clause
23)
16. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on N/A
the part of the Designated Officer of the
Insurance Company? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to the offer No
of the Insurance Company. (Clause 24)
18. Date of the Award 08.09.2025
19. Whether the award was passed with the consent No
of the parties? (Clause 22)
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open Yes
saving bank account(s) near their place of
residence? (Clause 18)
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were 03.05.2019
directed to open saving bank account (s) near
his place of residence and produce PAN Card
and Aadhar 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(s). (Clause 18)
22. Date on which the claimant (s) produced the 13.05.2025
passbook of their saving bank account near the
place of their residence along with the
endorsement, PAN Card and Aadhar Card?
(Clause 18)
23. Permanent Residential Address of the Udhranpur, Post
Claimant(s) (Clause 27) Devopur, Tehsil
Lalganj, District
Pratapgarh, Uttar
MACT No.389/2019 Harkesh Vs. Rajender Singh Yadav & Ors. Page 3 of 24
Pradesh.
Also at: H. No.337,
Namberdar wali
Gali, Village
Samalkha, New
Delhi
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the S.B. Account No.
claimant(s) and the address of the bank with 44034841573 in
IFSC Code (Clause 27) SBI, Lalganj,
Pratapgarh, Uttar
Pradesh (IFSC
Code:
SBIN0002566)
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank account(s) Yes
is near his/her place of residence? (Clause 27)
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the Yes
time of passing of the award to ascertain
his/their financial condition? (Clause 27)
27. Account number, MICR number IFSC Code, Account No.
name and branch of the bank of the Claims 42709452600 at SBI
Tribunal in which the award amount is to be Dwarka, Sector-10,
deposited/transferred. Dwarka Courts
Complex, IFSC
Code:
SBIN0011566 &
MICR No.
110002483.
AWAR D
Preface
1. Detailed Accident Report (DAR) has been filed seeking
compensation for bodily injury suffered in motor vehicle
accident.
Background
2. As gleaned from Final Report under section 279/338 IPC, injured Harkesh Bahadur Singh returning home on foot suffered bodily injury in motor vehicle accident near Fakirchand Tower, MACT No.389/2019 Harkesh Vs. Rajender Singh Yadav & Ors. Page 4 of 24 Old Delhi-Gurgaon Road, Samalkha, New Delhi on 19.03.2019 at about 5:30 am after he was hit by offending Bus No.HR- 55AD-6672 driven in rash and negligent manner. Injured was shifted to AIIMS Trauma Centre, Delhi where MLC No.5000160104/19 was prepared recording - (i) Laceration over Right Distal Foot AND (ii) Laceration over Right Foot Dorsum which were opined grievous.
3. FIR No.186/2019 under section 279/337 IPC was registered at PS Kapashera on 29.03.2019 and site-plan was prepared by IO. Offending Bus No.HR-55AD-6672 produced by respondent Manish pursuant to notice under section 133 M.V. Act was seized by IO and respondent Rajinder Singh Yadav was formally arrested on 30.03.2019 and released on police bail. Documents viz. DL, RC, Permit, Fitness & insurance policy of offending vehicle were verified from concerned authorities and offence under section 338 IPC was added on the basis of final opinion of grievous injury. IO, thereafter, concluded investigation and prepared DAR which was filed in Court along with copy of Final Report under section 279/338 IPC. Defence
4. Respondents Rajender Singh Yadav (driver) and Manish (owner) have disputed rash and/or negligent driving by contending that injured himself was carelessly strolling on the road.
5. Respondent National Insurance Co. Ltd. on its part has filed 'Legal Offer' assessing compensation Rs.50,000/- for bodily injuries suffered in road accident.
Inquiry MACT No.389/2019 Harkesh Vs. Rajender Singh Yadav & Ors. Page 5 of 24
6. Following issues were settled on 20.07.2019 and matter was posted for petitioner evidence.
i. Whether Harkesh sustained grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident dt. 19.3.2019 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. HR-55AD-6672 being driven by respondent no.1 Rajender Singh Yadav, owned by respondent no.2 Manish and insured by respondent no.3 National Insurance Co. Ltd.? ... OPP ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom? ... OPP iii. Relief.
7. Witnesses examined in support of application/DAR include:
i. Harkesh examined as PW-1 who has inter-alia deposed about - (i) multiple fractures in his left leg suffered in motor vehicle accident near Fakirchand Tower, Old Delhi- Gurgaon Road, Samalkha, New Delhi on 19.03.2019 at about 5:30 am after he was hit by offending Bus No.HR- 55AD-6672 driven in rash and negligent manner; (ii) treatment at JPN Apex Trauma Centre, AIIMS, Delhi; (iii) expenses incurred on medicine, treatment, conveyance, special diet, attendant charges, etc.; (iv) monthly income Rs.60,000/- against services provided to Suresh Transport Services; (v) Disability Certificate issued by RML Hospital, Delhi AND (vi) general and special damages consequent to bodily injuries suffered in road accident. He MACT No.389/2019 Harkesh Vs. Rajender Singh Yadav & Ors. Page 6 of 24 has relied upon following documents: (a) copy of Aadhar Card of deponent - Ex.PW-1/1; (b) Disability Certificate issued by RML Hospital, New Delhi - Ex.PW-1/2; (c) Certificate of Suresh Transport Services - Ex.PW-1/3 AND (d) DAR - Ex.PW-1/4;
ii. Dr. Sanjay Meena, Professor, Orthopedics, Lady Harding Medical College, New Delhi examined as PW-2 has proved Disability Certificate No.F.No. Addl.M.S. (ND)/CMB-88/2021/RMLH dated 18.05.2022 bearing his signature at point 'A'.
iii. Sh. Suresh Singh, Owner/Proprietor of Suresh Transport Services examined as PW-3 has deposed that petitioner/injured was working under his contract with the Udan Company;
iv. Sh. Chirag Kalra working with Bank of Baroda (earlier Vijaya Bank) examined as PW-4 has produced Statement of Account No.89830100007125 (old account no.602001011005217) in the name of Harkesh Bahadur Singh for the year 2018 to 2019 and referred to its copy as Ex.PW-4/1 (Colly.);
v. Dr. Shameem Ahmad, Professor, Orthopedics, Lady Harding Medical College, New Delhi examined as PW-5 has proved Disability Certificate No.F.No. Addl.M.S. (ND)/CMB-88/2021/RMLH dated 18.05.2022.
8. PW-1 to PW-5 have been cross-examined by Ld. counsel for insurance company and petitioner's evidence was closed on 22.03.2025.
MACT No.389/2019 Harkesh Vs. Rajender Singh Yadav & Ors. Page 7 of 249. No witness has been examined by driver, owner & insurer and respondents' evidence was also closed on 22.03.2025. Discussion and Conclusion
10. Advocate Sh. Rahul Kumar for injured and Advocate Ms. Anju Bagai for National Insurance Co. Ltd. have addressed their submissions.
11. I have carefully perused pleadings and evidence adduced on judicial file. My issue wise finding is recorded below:
12. Issue No.1:
Whether Harkesh sustained grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident dt. 19.3.2019 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. HR-55AD-6672 being driven by respondent no.1 Rajender Singh Yadav, owned by respondent no.2 Manish and insured by respondent no.3 National Insurance Co. Ltd.? ... OPP
13. PW-1 Harkesh has deposed about multiple fractures in his left leg suffered in motor vehicle accident near Fakirchand Tower, Old Delhi-Gurgaon Road, Samalkha, New Delhi on 19.03.2019 at about 5:30 am after he was hit by offending Bus No.HR-55AD-6672 driven in rash and negligent manner.
14. Testimony of injured has remained consistent and nothing material could be elicited during cross-examination by ld. Counsel for insurance company which could assail his testimony or impeach its veracity.
15. Respondents Rajender Singh Yadav (driver) and Manish (owner), on the other hand, have neither availed their right to cross-examine injured nor entered the witness-box to rebut MACT No.389/2019 Harkesh Vs. Rajender Singh Yadav & Ors. Page 8 of 24 allegation of rash and negligent driving of Bus No.HR-55AD- 6672 resulting in bodily injuries suffered by Harkesh. Adverse inference is therefore required to be raised against the driver as per the dicta of Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Durdadshya Kumar Samal & Ors. 1987 SCC Online Ori. 57 AND Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Vs. Smt. Kamlesh & Ors. decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 11th November, 2008.
16. Moreover, it is well settled law that negligence of the driver in case of road traffic accident is required to be established on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not apply to claim petitions under Motor Vehicle Act as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in para 15 of Bimla Devi & Ors. Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors (2009) 13 SCC 530.
17. Following observations in para 15 of aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court being relevant are extracted herein below :
"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...."
18. Similar observation has been recorded by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in para 12 of its judgment delivered in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Pushpa Rana & Ors. 2007 SCC MACT No.389/2019 Harkesh Vs. Rajender Singh Yadav & Ors. Page 9 of 24 Online Del 1700 holding that proceedings under Motor Vehicle Act are not akin to proceeding in a civil suit hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed and FIR against the driver along with criminal record of the case showing completion of investigation by the police leading to Final Report are sufficient proof to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent.
19. FINDING: Issue No.1 is therefore decided by holding that grievous injury suffered by Harkesh Bahadur Singh in motor vehicle accident on 19.03.2019 was caused as a result of rash and negligent driving of Bus No.HR-55AD-6672 by R1/Rajender Singh Yadav (driver) which vehicle was registered in the name of R2/Manish (owner) and insured with R3/National Insurance Co. Ltd.
20. Issue No.2 Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom? ... OPP
21. Injured Harkesh having suffered multiple fractures in his left leg in motor vehicle accident on 19.03.2019 was shifted JPN Apex Trauma Centre, AIIMS, Delhi where MLC No.5000160104/19 was prepared recording - (i) Laceration over Right Distal Foot AND (ii) Laceration over Right Foot Dorsum which were opined grievous. Injured Harkesh Bahadur Singh was also examined by Disability Board, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya Hospital, Delhi and Disability Certificate No.F.No. Addl.M.S. (ND)/CMB-88/2021/RMLH dated 18.05.2022 assessing 12% (Twelve Percent) permanent physical impairment in relation to MACT No.389/2019 Harkesh Vs. Rajender Singh Yadav & Ors. Page 10 of 24 Left Lower Limb & Trunk has been proved by PW-2 Dr. Sanjay Meena & PW-5 Dr. Shameem Ahmad.
22. Quantum of compensation payable to injured has to be assessed separately under pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads.
23. At the outset, it has to be borne in mind that compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly and Courts & Tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation which should be just. What would be "just" compensation is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Helen C. Rebello Vs. Maharasthra SRTC, 1999 (1) SCC 90.
24. Following para of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in R.D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (1995) 1 SCC 551 being relevant is extracted herein below:
"9. Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical MACT No.389/2019 Harkesh Vs. Rajender Singh Yadav & Ors. Page 11 of 24 attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life."
25. Heads of compensation under pecuniary and non- pecuniary damages have been further explained by Hon'ble Apex Court in para 6 of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) 1 SCC 343 which reads as under:
"6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following :
Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising :
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.MACT No.389/2019 Harkesh Vs. Rajender Singh Yadav & Ors. Page 12 of 24
Non-pecuniary damages (General
Damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii),
(v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.
NATURE AND EXTENT OF INJURIES
26. MLC No.5000160104/19 of injured prepared at JPN Apex Trauma, AIIMS, Delhi records - (i) Laceration over Right Distal Foot AND (ii) Laceration over Right Foot Dorsum which were opined grievous AND injured examined by Disability Board, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya Hospital, Delhi has been assessed with 12% (Twelve Percent) permanent physical impairment in relation to Left Lower Limb & Trunk.
27. No other document has been filed on record or relied in evidence to show any other injury.
MEDICINES AND TREATMENT MACT No.389/2019 Harkesh Vs. Rajender Singh Yadav & Ors. Page 13 of 24
28. PW-1 Harkesh Bahadur Singh has not adduced any Treatment Record & Medical Bills verifying expenses incurred on Medicines & Treatment.
29. Injured Harkesh Bahadur Singh is, therefore, not entitled to be compensated under the head - Medicines and Treatment. CONVEYANCE AND SPECIAL DIET
30. PW-1 Harkesh Bahadur Singh in para 8 of affidavit Ex.PW-1/A has deposed that his family members/relatives used to visit him at hospital for claiming Rs.22,000/- incurred on conveyance. However, no bill/document has been adduced in evidence verifying expenses incurred on Conveyance.
31. It is assumed that injured Harkesh Bahadur Singh having suffered injury in Spine and Left Knee (Compression fracture Spine, fracture tibial condyle with osteoarthritis changes) might have used private vehicle/hired taxi for treatment. A sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) is therefore awarded towards conveyance. Similarly, injured Harkesh Bahadur Singh might have also needed special diet for full and complete recovery from injury in spine & left knee. Another sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) is therefore awarded towards special diet.
ATTENDANT CHARGES
32. It is assumed that injured Harkesh Bahadur Singh having injury in Spine and Left Knee might have needed an attendant to assist him for around 06 months even if such gratuitous service was rendered by some or the other of his family/relatives. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. Vs. Kumari Lalita 1982 SCC Online Delhi 123 has MACT No.389/2019 Harkesh Vs. Rajender Singh Yadav & Ors. Page 14 of 24 held that the victim cannot be deprived of compensation towards gratuitous service rendered by some of his family member. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of material on record, injured is awarded Rs.10,000/- x 6 = Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand only) towards attendant charges.
LOSS OF INCOME
33. PW-1 Harkesh Bahadur Singh in paras 6 & 10 of affidavit Ex.PW-1/A has deposed about huge expenses incurred on treatment and having sold off Truck No.DL-1LR-8715 for repaying debts taken in course of treatment. Injured, in addition, has also claimed about loss of Rs.60,000/- per month received in his Bank Account No.89830100007125 against services provided to Suresh Transport Service and relied upon (i) Certificate of Suresh Transport Services AND (ii) Statement of Account No.89830100007125 (old account no.602001011005217) referred as Ex.PW-1/3 & Ex.PW-4/1 (Colly.).
34. It is, however, apposite to note that witness has claimed about treatment at Government Hospital AND conceded to have not filed any proof verifying ownership & sale of Truck/Tempo engaged by Suresh Transport Service during cross-examination by Ld. counsel for insurance company.
35. Monthly income of injured in the absence of cogent evidence is taken as per minimum wage of 'Unskilled Worker' @ Rs.14,468/- applicable in Delhi w.e.f. 01.04.2019.
36. It is assumed that Harkesh Bahadur Singh having suffered injury in Spine and Left Knee might have taken around 06 months to recover from Compression fracture Spine, fracture MACT No.389/2019 Harkesh Vs. Rajender Singh Yadav & Ors. Page 15 of 24 tibial condyle with osteoarthritis changes. He is, therefore, awarded Rs.14,468/- x 6 = Rs.86,808/- (Rupees Eighty Six Thousand Eight Hundred & Eight only) under the head - loss of income in course of treatment & recovery from fracture injury.
PAIN AND SUFFERING
37. Following factors 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
38. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in para 9 of Arvind Kumar Mishra Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (2010) 10 SCC 254 has observed that whole idea in case of assessment of all damages for personal injury is to put the claimant in the same position as he was insofar as money can. Perfect compensation is hardly possible but one has to keep in mind that the victim has done no wrong; he has suffered at the hands of wrongdoer and Court must take care to give him full and fair compensation for that he had suffered.
39. Injured Harkesh Bahadur Singh having suffered injury in Spine and Left Knee (Compression fracture Spine, fracture tibial condyle with osteoarthritis changes) has been assessed with 12% (Twelve Percent) permanent physical impairment in relation to Left Lower Limb & Trunk. He is therefore awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) towards Pain & MACT No.389/2019 Harkesh Vs. Rajender Singh Yadav & Ors. Page 16 of 24 Suffering AND additional Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as damage for 'Mental and Physical Shock'. LOSS OF AMENITIES AND LIFE
40. Injured Harkesh Bahadur Singh having suffered injury in Spine and Left Knee (Compression fracture Spine, fracture tibial condyle with osteoarthritis changes) has been assessed with 12% (Twelve Percent) permanent physical impairment in relation to Left Lower Limb & Trunk which is likely to affect his ability to participate in normal activities, social interactions and overall health, well-being and quality of life. Injured having completed 57 years of age at the time of accident is therefore awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) under the head - Loss of Amenities.
LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME/PROSPECTS
41. Petitioner Harkesh Bahadur Singh having suffered injury in Spine and Left Knee (Compression fracture Spine, fracture tibial condyle with osteoarthritis changes) has been assessed with 12% (Twelve Percent) permanent physical impairment in relation to Left Lower Limb & Trunk.
42. It is well settled law that percentage of loss of earning capacity arising from permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability and ascertainment of the effect of permanent disability on the actual earning capacity would involve three steps as laid down in para 13 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India titled Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar (Supra).
43. What is required to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured MACT No.389/2019 Harkesh Vs. Rajender Singh Yadav & Ors. Page 17 of 24 and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money to arrive at the future loss of earning by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine the loss of dependency as held in para 11 of aforesaid judgment titled Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar (Supra).
44. Since Harkesh Bahadur Singh had completed 57 years of age at the time of accident so considering his age AND avocation, this Court is of the opinion that 12% (Twelve Percent) permanent physical impairment in relation to Left Lower Limb & Trunk could have resulted in 5% functional disability/loss of earning capacity.
45. Loss of future income is calculated as - Rs.14,468/- x 110/100 x 12 x 9 x 5/100 = Rs.85,939.92/- (Rupees Eighty Five Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty Nine & Ninety Two Paise only) by applying multiplier of 9 in addition to future prospect @ 10% upon his monthly income @ Rs.14,468/-.
46. Break-up of compensation awarded under pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads is mentioned below in tabulated form:
S. No. HEADS AMOUNT (in
Rupees)
1. Medicines & Treatment -
2. Conveyance Rs.10,000/-
3. Special Diet Rs.30,000/-
4. Attendant Charges Rs.60,000/-
5. Loss of Income Rs.86,808/-
6. Pain & Suffering Rs.50,000/-
7. Loss of amenities of life Rs.50,000/-
8. Mental & Physical Shock Rs.50,000/-
MACT No.389/2019 Harkesh Vs. Rajender Singh Yadav & Ors. Page 18 of 24
9 Loss of future income/prospect Rs.85,939.92/-
TOTAL Rs.4,22,747.92/-
rounded off to
Rs.4,23,000/-
INTEREST
47. There is nothing on record to justify withholding interest on the award amount. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it will be just and proper to grant interest @ 7.5% per annum on the award amount in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mannat Johar & Anr. (2019) 15 SCC
260. Injured Harkesh Bahadur Singh is therefore awarded interest @ 7.5% per annum upon award amount Rs.4,23,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand only) from the date of filing of DAR on 03.05.2019 till notice of deposit under Order XXI Rule 1 CPC to petitioner/counsel.
LIABILITY
48. Rajender Singh Yadav (driver) being principal tortfeasor driving Bus No.HR-55AD-6672 in rash and negligent manner resulting in bodily injury suffered by Harkesh Bahadur Singh and Manish (owner) being vicariously liable for the act of the driver are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation along with interest. However, since offending Bus No.HR-55AD-6672 was insured against Third Party Risk so, National Insurance Co. Ltd. (insurer) being statutorily liable under Section 149 (1) of M. V. Act shall pay the award amount along with interest to injured in the absence of any statutory defence under section 149(2) of M.V. Act.
MACT No.389/2019 Harkesh Vs. Rajender Singh Yadav & Ors. Page 19 of 2449. FINDING : Issue No.2 is decided accordingly by holding that R3/National Insurance Co. Ltd. shall pay the award amount with interest to injured Harkesh Bahadur Singh. RELIEF
50. Thus, in view of foregoing discussion & conclusion and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, award for a sum of Rs.4,23,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand only) along with interest @ 7.5% p.a from the date of filing of DAR on 03.05.2019 till notice of deposit under Order XXI Rule 1 CPC is passed in favour of injured and against all respondents.
51. The above-said compensation amount with interest shall be paid to injured by R3/National Insurance Co. Ltd.
52. FORM-IVB SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident : 19.03.2019
2. Name of the injured : Harkesh Bahadur Singh
3. Age of the injured : 57 years (at the time of accident)
4. Occupation of the injured : Private job
5. Income of the injured : Rs.14,468/- (minimum wage of 'Unskilled Worker' applicable in Delhi w.e.f. 01.04.2019)
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken : JPN Apex Trauma Center, by the injured AIIMS, Delhi MACT No.389/2019 Harkesh Vs. Rajender Singh Yadav & Ors. Page 20 of 24
8. Period of hospitalization : Nil.
9. Whether any permanent : Yes disability? If yes, give details.
10. Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on treatment -
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs.10,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs.30,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs.60,000/-
(v) Cost of artificial limb -
(vi) Loss of earning capacity 5%
(vii) Loss of income Rs.86,808/-
(viii) Any other loss which may require -
any special treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and Rs.50,000/-
physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.50,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration
(v) Loss of marriage prospects -
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, -
hardship, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and unhappiness in
future life etc.
MACT No.389/2019 Harkesh Vs. Rajender Singh Yadav & Ors. Page 21 of 24
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability assessed 12% (Permanent and nature of disability as Physical permanent or temporary Disability)
(ii) Loss of amenities of loss of -
expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning 5% capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future Income - (Income x Rs.85,939.92/-
% Earning Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.4,22,747.92/-
rounded off to Rs.4,23,000/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED
16. Interest amount up to the date of @ 7.5% p.a. from award the date of filing of DAR i.e. 03.05.2019 till notice of deposit under Order XXI Rule 1 CPC
17. Total amount including interest Rs.4,23,000/- + interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the DAR i.e. 03.05.2019 till notice of deposit under Order XXI Rule 1 CPC
18. Award amont released As per table given below
19. Award amount kept in FDRs As per table given below
20. Mode of disbursement of the By credit in the award amount to the claimant(s). SB Account of the MACT No.389/2019 Harkesh Vs. Rajender Singh Yadav & Ors. Page 22 of 24 injured 21 Next Date for compliance of the 28.10.2025 Award.
53. The award amount shall be deposited by R3/National Insurance Co. Ltd. in Account No.42709452600 of MACT, South West, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi at State Bank of India, District Court Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi (IFSC Code SBIN0011566 and MICR Code 110002483) through RTGS/NEFT/IMPS within 30 days of the award as per section 168(3) of M.V. Act under intimation to the Nazir of this court with proof of notice to the claimant/injured and his counsel.
54. Statement of injured Sh. Harkesh Bahadur Singh regarding financial status, needs and liabilities has been recorded. In view of the said statement and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the award amount shall be disbursed in following manner:-
S. Name Status Amount of Release Amount No Award Amount of FDR
1. Sh. Injured Rs.4,23,000/- + Rs.4,23,000/- Nil interest @ 7.5% - with Harkesh p.a. from the proportionate Bhahadur date of filing of interest in the DAR i.e. MACT Claims Singh 03.05.2019 till SB Account of notice of injured deposit under Order XXI Rule 1 CPC Total Rs.4,23,000/- Rs.4,23,000/-MACT No.389/2019 Harkesh Vs. Rajender Singh Yadav & Ors. Page 23 of 24
55. Injured has mentioned details of Savings Bank Account No.44034841573 in State Bank of India, Lalganj, Pratapgarh, Uttar Pradesh (IFSC Code: SBIN0002566) in his statement recorded on 13.05.2025 and it is requested that award amount may be transferred in the said SB Account.
56. Accordingly, Manager, State Bank of India, District Courts Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi is directed to transfer Rs.4,23,000/- with proportionate interest in SB Account No.44034841573 in State Bank of India, Lalganj, Pratapgarh, Uttar Pradesh (IFSC Code: SBIN0002566).
57. Respondent National Insurance Co. Ltd. shall inform injured/counsel regarding award amount being deposited in MACT Account through registered post.
58. Copy of this award be sent to the Manager, SBI, District Courts Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi AND Manager, State Bank of India, Lalganj, Pratapgarh, Uttar Pradesh (IFSC Code: SBIN0002566) for information/ compliance.
59. Dasti copy of award be given to Ld. Counsel for injured and insurance company.
60. Ahlmad is directed to prepare separate miscellaneous file to be listed on 28.10.2025 for filing compliance report.
61. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by TARUN YOGESH TARUN Announced in the open Court YOGESH Date: 2025.09.10 16:04:26 on 08.09.2025 +0530 (Tarun Yogesh) PO, MACT-01, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi MACT No.389/2019 Harkesh Vs. Rajender Singh Yadav & Ors. Page 24 of 24