Delhi District Court
Anil (Dar) vs Nitu (435/23Svr) on 30 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHELLY ARORA
DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
PO MACT (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No.532/2024
FIR no. 435/2023
PS: Sarita Vihar
U/s 279/337/338/304A IPC
CNR No. DLSE01-002564-2024
Anil Vs. Nitu & Ors.
Anil
S/o Sh. Ram Chander
R/o 82, Ashoka Bindhu, Sar Camp,
East of Kailash, Sriniwaspuri, South Delhi.
...Claimants/LRs of deceased
Versus
1. Nitu Kumar
S/o Ramesh Chandra
R/o H. No. 93, Purani Colony
Gwalra, PS Harduagani
Aligarh, UP.
..... Driver / R-1
2. Ramesh
S/o Sh. Shri Ram
R/o H. No. 17, Block-4, Village -Pali
Faridabad, Haryana.
..... Owner/ R-2
MACT No.532/2024 Anil Vs. Nitu & Ors. Page No. 1 of 48
3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
24-28, Ground Floor, NBCC Center, near Crown
Plaza Hotel, Okhla, Phase-1, New Delhi.
....Insurance Company/R-3
Date of accident : 21.08.2023
Date of filing of DAR : 14.03.2024
Date of Decision : 30.10.2025
AWARD
1. Detailed Accident Report (DAR)
1(a) Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred as
DAR) pertaining to Road Traffic Accident (RTA) of Anil
(hereinafter referred as claimant) allegedly caused by vehicle
bearing Reg. No. HR 38S 6316 (hereinafter referred as offending
vehicle), which was driven by Sh. Nitu Kumar (hereinafter
referred as Respondent No.1), owned by Sh. Ramesh (hereinafter
referred as R-2) and insured with The New India Assurance
Company Limited (hereinafter referred as R-3) was filed by IO
SI Vijay Singh in terms of provisions of Motor Vehicle Act,
which is being treated as Claim Petition under Section 166 (1)
read with Section 166 (4) MV Act.
2. BRIEF FACTS
2(a) Preliminary information regarding accident in question was
received at PS Sarita Vihar recorded vide GD no. 001, 002 dt.
21.08.2023 with respect to fatal accident, upon receipt of which
IO SI Vijay Singh along with HC Rishi Pal reached spot of
MACT No.532/2024 Anil Vs. Nitu & Ors. Page No. 2 of 48
accident i.e. near Sarita Vihar Metro Station where they found
dead body, scooty bearing Reg. No. DL 3SEA 4901 and a truck
bearing Reg. No. HR 38S 6316 (Tata Hyva). It was informed that
driver of such Truck fled away from spot after accident. IO took
photographs of the site. Crime Team was called. Blood stained
earth was collected. Deceased was taken to AIIMS Hospital.
Upon receipt of GD no.14A with respect of MLCs, IO reached
AIIMS Trauma Center and collected MLC of injured Ketan
Kumar and injured Anil. Statement of injured Ketan Kumar was
recorded who informed that he along with his friend Krishan
Gopal were riding on a scooty bearing Reg. No. DL 3SEA 4901
as pillion riders, being driven by another friend Anil and when
they reached under Sarita Vihar Metro Station, their scooty was
hit by a speedy and rashly driven Truck from behind due to
which they all of them sustained injuries. Injured Anil was
declared unfit for statement. FIR was registered under relevant
provisions. Both offending as well as accidental vehicles were
taken into police possession. Notice under Section 133 MV Act
was served upon Registered Owner of the offending vehicle who
informed that his driver Nitu was driving the said vehicle as on
the date of accident. Documents pertaining to offending vehicle
were seized and got verified which were found to be in order.
Post Mortem Examination of deceased was conducted.
Mechanical Inspection of both offending as well as accidental
vehicle was got conducted.
2(b) On 02.10.2023, statement of injured Anil was also
recorded who reiterated the story and chain of accident on the
lines of injured Ketan Kumar and also confirmed that he was
driving the scooty at the time of accident. Statement of PCR
MACT No.532/2024 Anil Vs. Nitu & Ors. Page No. 3 of 48
caller namely Sh. Sachin Mishra was also recorded who also
narrated the version of accident already mentioned above.
2(c) Upon conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed
against driver of offending vehicle for injuring and causing death
of victims on account of speedy and rash driving of offending
vehicle on a public way. DAR was also filed by Investigating
Officer.
3. Reply:
3(a) Any reply was not filed by R-1/ driver and R-2/ owner.
3(b) Legal Offer cum Reply was filed on behalf of the
Insurance Company, conceding the validity and genuineness of
the insurance policy as on the date of the accident. A deduction of
30% was made as part of legal offer. No specific reason for such
deduction was stated in the said Reply cum Legal Offer.
Subsequently, in its Written Submissions/computation, the
Insurance Company attributed the deduction to triple riding
which disbalanced scooty contributing to the accident and also
that the deceased was not wearing a helmet at the time of the
accident due to which he sustained head injuries.
4. Issues:
4(a) From the pleadings of parties, following issues were
framed vide order dated 06.09.2024:
1) Whether the deceased suffered fatal injury in a road
traffic accident on 21.08.2023 due to rash and negligent
driving of vehicle no. HR 38S 6316 being driven by
R-1, owned by R-2 and insured with R-3? OPP.
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any
compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom ?
OPP.
3) Relief.
MACT No.532/2024 Anil Vs. Nitu & Ors. Page No. 4 of 48
4(b) It is noted that inadvertently the issue no.1 has been
framed for fatal injury, however, in the present case injured has
suffered grievous injuries and as such, to avoid any confusion,
issue no.1 is reframed as under:
1) Whether the injured suffered injuries in a road traffic
accident on 21.08.2023 due to rash and negligent
driving of vehicle no. HR 38S 6316 being driven by
R-1, owned by R-2 and insured with R-3? OPP.
5. Disability Certificate
5(a) A Disability certificate dated 15.07.2024 filed noticing
70% physical disability in relation to right lower limb (below
knee amputation).
6. Evidence:
6(a) Matter was then listed for Petitioners Evidence. PW-1 Sh.
Anil tendered his evidentiary affidavit as Ex.PW1/X. He relied
upon following documents:
Ex.PW1/1- Photocopy of Aadhar Card
Ex.PW1/2- Copy of PAN Card
Ex.PW1/3- Copy of Election ID Card
Ex.PW1/4- Copy of Driving License
Ex.PW1/5- Copies of Educational Proof
Ex.PW1/6- Copy of Discharge Summary
Ex.PW1/7- Original Medical Bills
Ex.PW1/8- Disability Certificate
Ex.PW1/9- DAR
Ex.PW1/10- Quotation bill of Artificial Limb
MACT No.532/2024 Anil Vs. Nitu & Ors. Page No. 5 of 48
PW-1 was cross examined by counsel for insurance
company.
6(b) Petitioner Evidence was then closed. No evidence was led
by respondent side. Matter was then listed for Final Arguments.
7. Final Arguments:
7(a) Final Arguments were addressed by Counsel for claimant
as well as counsel for R-2/ Insurance Company.
7(b) Counsel for the claimant has argued that the accident
happened on account of speedy and rash driving of the offending
vehicle. He also stated that there is no dispute in identification
and involvement of the offending vehicle as well as driver
thereof as the vehicle was seized from the spot itself by the
police officials and legal offer was also filed on behalf of
insurance company which also suggest that there is no dispute
exists with respect to accident and rashness on the part of driver
of offending vehicle. Counsel for claimant further contended that
victim was a young man of about 23 years at the time of accident
who was employed as Store Incharge with Watcon International
at S-36, Okhla Industrial Area, Okhla Phase-2, New Delhi and
was getting a salary of Rs. 25,000/-, however, due to the
accident, his right leg (below knee) had to be amputated which
has drastically affected the life of claimant leading to loss of job
and future professional growth. Computation also filed on behalf
of claimant along with judgment in the case of Mohammed
Siddique & Anr. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd & Ors.
(AIR 2020 SC 520) to emphasize that there is no causal
connection between accident and violation of traffic hours due to
triple riding and same would not constitute / qualify to be
MACT No.532/2024 Anil Vs. Nitu & Ors. Page No. 6 of 48
contributory negligence against claimants or rider of accidental
scooty.
7(c) No arguments were advanced on behalf of R-1 & R-2.
7(d). Counsel for the Insurance Company conceded the validity
and genuineness of policy on the date of accident admitting that
there is no statutory defence in this matter which is why legal
offer was filed. Counsel for Insurance Company however
emphasized that accident occurred due to negligence of scooty
driver as he lost control over vehicle due to triple riding and
rammed in to truck as evident from the site plan and other
documents of charge sheet. She insisted that deduction towards
contributory negligence at least to extent of 30% should be
applied.
8. Discussion:
On the basis of material on record, evidence adduced and
arguments addressed, issue wise findings are as under :-
ISSUE NO.1
1) Whether the injured suffered injuries in a road traffic
accident on 21.08.2023 due to rash and negligent
driving of vehicle no. HR 38S 6316 being driven by
R-1, owned by R-2 and insured with R-3? OPP.
8(a). PW-1/ injured Anil Kumar deposed that on 20.08.2023 at
about 11:30 PM, he was commuting by his scooty bearing
Registration No. DL-3SEA-4901 along with his friends, namely
Krishan Gopal and Ketan Kumar, sitting as pillion riders from
Badarpur that a speedy and rashly driven offending vehicle came
from behind while they were crossing under Sarita Vihar Metro
Station and forcefully rammed into the scooty. As a result, he and
MACT No.532/2024 Anil Vs. Nitu & Ors. Page No. 7 of 48
Ketan sustained injuries whereas Krishan Gopal died on the spot.
8(b) PW-1/ Anil Kumar was extensively cross examined by
counsel for insurance company. He denied suggestion that he
was constrained to use the service road due to heavy traffic or
that while attempting to merge on the main road, his scooty
collided with the offending vehicle. He specifically denied any
head-on collision and affirmed that the scooty was hit from
behind. He further deposed that all three riders were wearing
helmets at the time of the accident and denied the suggestion that
he was under the influence of liquor.
8(c) The charge sheet filed as part of the DAR corroborates his
testimony. Two accidental vehicles were found and seized from
the spot itself by the police officials, who had promptly reached
there upon receipt of information recorded as GD No. 01 & 02
dated 21.08.2023. The dead body of deceased Krishan Gopal was
also found at the spot. MLCs of injured Anil and Ketan were
collected from AIIMS Trauma Center pursuant to DD No. 14A,
and the statement of injured Ketan, recorded by the IO in the
hospital, supported the claimant's version of the accident. Notice
under Section 133 MV Act was served upon the owner of the
offending vehicle, who confirmed that his driver, Nitu Kumar,
was driving the vehicle on the date of the accident. Post-mortem
examination of deceased Krishan Gopal was also conducted
whose findings confirmed death due to Road Traffic Accident.
8(d) Insurance Company admittedly chose not to raise any
statutory defence, having filed legal offer in this case.
8(e) R-1 has been charge sheeted for causing injury to victim
due to speedy and rash driving of the offending vehicle. It is
settled that filing of charge sheet itself is a significant step
MACT No.532/2024 Anil Vs. Nitu & Ors. Page No. 8 of 48
towards the inference of negligence on the part of driver of the
offending vehicle. (Support drawn from the Judgment in the case
of National Insurance Company Vs. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287
Delhi as referred and relied by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in case of Ranjeet & Anr. Vs. Abdul Kayam Neb & Anr SLP (C)
No. 10351/2019). It is matter of record that R-1/ driver of
offending vehicle, who was the best person to have divulged
crucial details of accident, chose not even to file reply to even
barely denying the allegation against him. No evidence has been
led by any of the respondents. It is also settled that adverse
inference can be drawn against the driver of the offending vehicle
in case he does not appear as a witness to depose and clarify
about his stance in respect of the accident. (support drawn from
the judgment in the case of Cholamandlam insurance company
Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh 2009 (3) AD Delhi 310.)
8(f) It is a well-established legal principle that negligence in
motor accident cases should be determined based on the
preponderance of probabilities, not on proof beyond reasonable
doubt. The facts and circumstances must be considered in a broad
and practical manner. It is also settled that proceedings under the
Motor Vehicles Act are different from regular civil suits and are
not strictly governed by the technical rules of the Indian
Evidence Act. (as observed by Their Lordships of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Bimla Devi & Ors. v.
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors., (2009) 13 SCC
530 further referred and relied by Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in recent pronouncement in the case of Mathew Alexander
vs Mohammed Shafi SLP (Crl) No.8211 of 2022).
MACT No.532/2024 Anil Vs. Nitu & Ors. Page No. 9 of 48
Contributory Negligence:
8(g) Counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that the
accident occurred as head on collision between accidental and
offending vehicle substantiated from Mechanical Inspection
Report which reflects frontal damages on both the offending
vehicle as well as the accidental scooty. She further contended
that victims were tripling on scooty which would have have
occasioned disbalance of scooty and eventual collision. She also
pointed out that deceased Krishan Gopal, one of pillion riders
was not wearing helmet causing head injury which led to his
death. Insurance Company has pressed for at least 30% deduction
from the compensation amount on account of contributory
negligence.
8(h) Per contra, counsel for the claimants has opposed the plea
having relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Mohammed Siddique (supra) to emphasize that
mere violation of traffic rules such as triple riding or non-
wearing of a helmet has no causal connection with the accident
and therefore cannot tantamount to contributory negligence. He
further asserted that the accident took place solely on account of
rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, which struck
the scooty from behind thus the plea of contributory negligence
is completely untenable.
8(i) The Site Plan (Ex.PW1/9) clearly shows that the accident
occurred on the extreme left side of the road, and the points
marked for the scooty and the deceased are ahead of the point
marked for the offending truck. This corroborates the version of
the claimants that the scooty was struck from behind. Once it is
established that the scooty was hit from the rear, the theory of
MACT No.532/2024 Anil Vs. Nitu & Ors. Page No. 10 of 48
head-on collision is ruled out. The damages noted in the
Mechanical Inspection Report on the frontal portion of the scooty
can occur if the vehicle is pushed forward by an impact from
behind, causing damage to its front portion upon hitting the
ground. Since both the vehicles were moving in the same
direction, the theory of head on collision between the two
vehicles is practically ruled out. Service lane driving of
accidental scooty as suggested by counsel for insurance company
during cross examination has been categorically denied by the
injured. No controverting evidence has been put forth by counsel
for insurance company to infer otherwise.
8(j) Regarding non-wearing of helmet, it is part of the record
that two helmets were recovered from the spot but that does not
prove that third rider was not wearing helmet. PW-1/ Anil Kumar
(one of the injured and eye witness to the connected case bearing
MACT no.532/24) deposed that all three riders of scooty
including him were wearing helmet at the time of accident. There
is no clinching evidence to infer that the deceased was not
wearing a helmet at the time of accident. Wearing of a helmet
may have some bearing on the nature of injuries sustained but
has no nexus with the cause of the accident. It is settled that
contributory negligence must relate to the happening of the
accident, not to the severity of injuries.
8(k) At this stage, it is imperative to make mention of certain
observations made by Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case
of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kadeeja Musliyar,
MACA.No.1433 OF 2010 & 1952 wherein it was held that mere
violation of Section 129 of Motor Vehicles Act would not itself
constitute contributory negligence unless the said violation, itself,
MACT No.532/2024 Anil Vs. Nitu & Ors. Page No. 11 of 48
is cause of the accident irrespective of its effect on the severity of
injury. Relevant paras are reproduced hereunder for ready
reference:
"...............
.
9. This Court in P.J.Jose & Ors V. Vanchankal Niyas & Ors. (2016 (1) KLJ 596) considered this point in detail. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
"6. The learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submits that the consequence of non-wearing of the Helmet and the course that could be followed by the Tribunal in apportioning negligence had come up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court and as per the judgment reported in Siby Paul v. Praveen Kumar (2009 (1) KLT 322) it has been held that it could be raised as a defence from the part of the insurance company to apportion the liability to an appropriate extent. The Tribunal, in the award, has referred to the instance of non-wearing of the 'Helmet' leading to the death of the deceased and in turn, has fixed 25% contributory negligence on the part of the rider. No other aspect was discussed by the Tribunal in the award. We find it difficult to agree with the proposition that non- wearing of 'Helmet', though an offence under the relevant provisions of the M.V.Act, could be taken as a ground to fix contributory negligence on the part of the rider. What is to be considered with regard to the apportionment of negligence is whether the party concerned had any role/part in causing or contributing to the accident. In other words, the consequence pursuant to the accident is not a circumstance to be weighed for fixation of negligence in causing the accident. With regard to the non-wearing of 'Helmet' and resultant death because of the head injury, it is only a 'consequence' after the accident. Because of the non-wearing of 'Helmet', the injury sustained to the head became fatal, leading to the death of the deceased. It is true that, had the deceased been wearing a 'Helmet', probably his life could have been saved and the gravity of the injury would not have been this much severe, to have resulted in the death of the deceased. But the consequence because of the non-wearing of 'Helmet' was not the reason for knocking down the rider of the motor cycle by the driver of the jeep which was coming from the opposite side and this being the position, negligence cannot be fixed on the shoulders of the rider of the vehicle merely for not wearing the 'Helmet' ".
10. Of course this Court also considered the judgment in Siby Paul V. Praveen Kumar (2009(1) KLT 322) in which this Court observed that in a case where there is non-wearing of helmets by riders of two MACT No.532/2024 Anil Vs. Nitu & Ors. Page No. 12 of 48 wheelers, the insurance company can plead that there is contributory negligence. The relevant portion of the judgment of this Court in Siby Paul is extracted hereunder:
"4. Before parting with this matter, we feel obliged to take note of the conduct of the petitioner which led to the head injury for him and the consequent disability at a very young age. S.129 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for wearing of protective head gear by those riding two wheelers. Under explanation to the said section protective head gear is 'helmet', the use of which has proved it's capacity to protect the rider from head injury in the event of accident. The Section specifically states that every driver and pillion rider of a motor cycle of any class or description shall wear a protective head gear. The Supreme Court has in the case of Ajay Canu v. Union of India, 1988 KHC 705 1988 (4) SCC 156 : 1988 (2) and negligent driving of offending vehicle.
KLT SN 68 : AIR 1988 SC 2027 held that wearing of crash helmet is mandatory for drivers of two wheelers. The violation of mandatory provision of the Act and Rules attract penal provisions. But so long as the riders are not caught, they will escape from punishment. However, apart from punishment, if a rider gets into an accident and suffers head injury, we feel defence will be available to the Insurance Company to plead that there is contributory negligence, inasmuch as the use of helmet would have reduced the impact of the accident which has resulted in head injury for the rider. When protection that a helmet provides to a rider is statutorily recognized and when it is mandatory under statute for the riders and drivers of two wheelers to wear the same, we feel it is a matter to be considered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal as to whether the injured in a motor bike accident had suffered head injury and if so, whether at the time of accident the driver or pillion rider, as the case may be, who claims compensation for head injury was wearing a helmet. If the protective head gear, namely, helmet, the use of which is mandatory under S.129 of the Act, was not worn by the drivers or pillion riders who sustained head injury, then contributory negligence can be assumed, if not for causing the accident but for sustaining injury which could have been prevented or the impact of which could have been reduced through compliance of the statutory provision by wearing a helmet. In fact the want of helmet for the rider may not be contributory to the accident. However, the use of helmet would prevent head injury or at least reduce the impact of the injury in the event of accident for the driver and pillion rider of the bike or two wheeler. Therefore, in our opinion, it is for the Tribunal to consider whether in case of claim of compensation for death or injury of drivers or pillion riders of two wheelers they were wearing MACT No.532/2024 Anil Vs. Nitu & Ors. Page No. 13 of 48 helmet at the time of accident and if not whether wearing of helmet would have prevented the death or injury or reduced the impact of the injury and if the same should be reckoned as an aspect of contributory negligence for reducing the compensation amount. Any claim made by riders about wearing of helmet at the time of accident should be critically examined and if found bogus the same should be rejected. Besides this, we feel in addition of the other conditions in the insurance policy such as the driver of the vehicle should have a valid driving licence, the insurance company can impose a condition in the policy making helmet compulsory for the riders of two wheelers to claim compensation for head injury and consequent disability or death. The 3rd respondent insurance company, will take up this matter with the head quarters for considering incorporation of the condition of requirement of helmet for riders of two wheelers for claiming benefit under policy. The MACA is disposed of with the above observation. "
11. In Siby Paul's case (supra) this Court observed that the violation of mandatory provisions of the Act and Rules attract penal provisions. This Court also observed that when protection that a helmet provides to a rider is statutorily recognised and when it is mandatory under the statute for the drivers of the two wheelers to wear the same, it is a matter to be considered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. This court held that the tribunal has to find out whether the injured in a motorcycle accident has suffered a head injury and if so, whether at the time of the accident, the driver or the pillion driver as the case may be, who claims compensation for head injury was wearing a helmet. Therefore, this Court only observed in Siby Paul's case (supra) that if there is a violation of the statutory provisions, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal shall consider the same to find out whether there is contributory negligence.
12. After considering the judgment in Siby Paul's case, this Court in P.J.Jose's case (supra) observed that what is to be considered with regard to the apportionment of negligence is whether the party concerned had any role/part in causing or contributing to the accident. In other words, the consequences pursuant to the accident are not a circumstance to be considered for fixation of negligence in causing the accident. With regard to the non- wearing of the helmet and the resultant death because of the head injury, this Court observed that it is only a consequence after the accident. This Court also observed that because of the non-wearing of the helmet, the injury sustained to the head became fatal leading to the death of the deceased. It is true that had the deceased be wearing a helmet, probably his life could have been saved and the gravity of the injury would not have been this much severe to have resulted in the death of the deceased. But the consequence because of the non-wearing of the helmet was not the reason for knocking down the rider of the motorcycle by the offending vehicle. In such a situation, this Court observed that this being the position, negligence cannot be fixed on MACT No.532/2024 Anil Vs. Nitu & Ors. Page No. 14 of 48 the shoulders of the rider of the vehicle merely for not wearing the helmet.
.
.
.
.
15. The authorities are bound to follow the above directions of this court in its letter and spirit. I made certain observations in this judgment based on Section 129 of the Act and it is only to show that there cannot be any contributory negligence for the simple violation of Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act. To attribute contributory negligence, some other additional evidence is necessary in addition to the violation of Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal to the effect that there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased is to be set aside."
8(l) Support also drawn from observation made by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Mohammed Siddique (supra) holding mere violation of traffic rules such as triple riding does not constitute contributory negligence unless there is a direct causal connection with the occurrence of the accident. Relevant paras in the context at hand is reproduced as under:
"13. But the above reason, in our view, is flawed. The fact that the deceased was riding on a motor cycle along with the driver and another, may not, by itself, without anything more, make him guilty of contributory negligence. At the most it would make him guilty of being a party to the violation of the law. Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, imposes a restriction on the driver of a two− wheeled motor cycle, not to carry more than one person on the motor cycle. Section 194−C inserted by the Amendment Act 32 of 2019, prescribes a penalty for violation of safety measures for motor cycle drivers and pillion riders. Therefore, the fact that a person was a pillion rider on a motor cycle along with the driver and one more person on the pillion, may be a violation of the law. But such violation by itself, without anything more, cannot lead to a finding of contributory negligence, unless it is established that his very act of riding along with two others, contributed either to the accident or to MACT No.532/2024 Anil Vs. Nitu & Ors. Page No. 15 of 48 the impact of the accident upon the victim. There must either be a causal connection between the violation and the accident or a causal connection between the violation and the impact of the accident upon the victim. It may so happen at times, that the accident could have been averted or the injuries sustained could have been of a lesser degree, if there had been no violation of the law by the victim. What could otherwise have resulted in a simple injury, might have resulted in a grievous injury or even death due to the violation of the law by the victim. It is in such cases, where, but for the violation of the law, either the accident could have been averted or the impact could have been minimized, that the principle of contributory negligence could be invoked. It is not the case of the insurer that the accident itself occurred as a result of three persons riding on a motor cycle. It is not even the case of the insurer that the accident would have been averted, if three persons were not riding on the motor cycle. The fact that the motor cycle was hit by the car from behind, is admitted. Interestingly, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the deceased was wearing a helmet and that the deceased was knocked down after the car hit the motor cycle from behind, are all not assailed. Therefore, the finding of the High Court that 2 persons on the pillion of the motor cycle, could have added to the imbalance, is nothing but presumptuous and is not based either upon pleading or upon the evidence on record. Nothing was extracted from PW−3 to the effect that 2 persons on the pillion added to the imbalance."
8(m) From the discussion, it is proved that the accident was caused solely on account of speedy and rash driving of offending vehicle and any negligence in exercise of duty of care on the part of deceased could not be attributed which could have averted the accident. The plea of insurance company that scooty riders must be held accountable for contributory negligence is rejected.
8(n) In view of the aforesaid discussions, it is thus held that the MACT No.532/2024 Anil Vs. Nitu & Ors. Page No. 16 of 48 accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Issue No.1 is decided in favour of claimant and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2"Whether the injured is entitled to any compensation and if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP"
9. Section 168 MV Act enjoins the Claim Tribunals to hold an enquiry into the claim to make an effort determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable. Same is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
"(1) Award of the Claims Tribunal.--On receipt of an application for compensation made under section 166, the Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the application to the insurer and after giving the parties (including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim or, as the case may be, each of the claims and, subject to the provisions of section 162 may make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid and in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them, as the case may be: Provided that where such application makes a claim for compensation under section 140 in respect of the death or permanent disablement of any person, such claim and any other claim (whether made in such application or otherwise) for compensation in respect of such death or permanent disablement shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Chapter X. (2) The Claims Tribunal shall arrange to deliver copies of the award to the parties concerned expeditiously and in any case within a period of fifteen days from the date of the award.
(3) When an award is made under this section, the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall, within thirty days of the date of announcing the MACT No.532/2024 Anil Vs. Nitu & Ors. Page No. 17 of 48 award by the Claims Tribunal, deposit the entire amount awarded in such manner as the Claims Tribunal may direct."
10. Before putting in frame the position of law, it is noted that the process of determining the compensation by the court is essentially a very difficult task and can never be an exact science. Perfect compensation is hardly possible, more so in claims of injury and disability. (As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sidram Vs. The Divisional Manager United India Insurance Company Ltd, SLP (Civil) No. 19277 of 2019).
11. The basic principle in assessing motor vehicle compensation claims, is to place the victim in as near a position as she or he was in before the accident, with other compensatory directions for loss of amenities and other payments. These general principles have been stated and reiterated in several decisions. [Support drawn from Govind Ram Yadav vs. New India Insurance Company Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683] .
12. This Tribunal has been tasked with determination of just compensation. The observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Divisional controller, KSRTC vs. Mahadeva Shetty & Anr., (2003) 7 SCC 197, needs mention here (para 15):
"Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation must be "just" and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit but the same should not be a pittance. The courts and 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. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of MACT No.532/2024 Anil Vs. Nitu & Ors. Page No. 18 of 48 "just" compensation which is the pivotal consideration. Though by use of the expression "which appears to it to be just", a wide discretion is vested in the Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness.. ..."
13. Delineating the damages as pecuniary and non pecuniary, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in case of R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt Ltd, 1995 AIR 755, made following observations:
"9....while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant:
(i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non-
pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life."
14. Certain principles for delineating just compensation were enumerated in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343, by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Following observations are relevant in the context:
"40.General principles relating to compensation in injury cases
5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act", for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent MACT No.532/2024 Anil Vs. Nitu & Ors. Page No. 19 of 48 possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or the Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. [See C.K. Subramania Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair [(1969) 3 SCC 64 : AIR 1970 SC 376] , R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. [(1995) 1 SCC 551 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 250] and Baker v. Willoughby [1970 AC 467 : (1970) 2 WLR 50 : (1969) 3 All ER 1528 (HL)] .]
6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)
(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 MACT No.532/2024 Anil Vs. Nitu & Ors. Page No. 20 of 48 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.
7. 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. Decisions of this Court and the 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. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a human being. Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor accident injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the MACT No.532/2024 Anil Vs. Nitu & Ors. Page No. 21 of 48 Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 ("the Disabilities Act", for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in Section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming compensation.
9. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the same as 45% permanent disability with reference to the whole body. The extent of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of a percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole body. If there is 60% permanent disability of the right hand and 80% permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent of permanent disability with reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the body have suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to the whole body cannot obviously exceed 100%.
10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation.
11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the MACT No.532/2024 Anil Vs. Nitu & Ors. Page No. 22 of 48 effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that the percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation. (See for example, the decisions of this Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC 254 :
(2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1258 : (2010) 10 Scale 298] and Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC 341 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1285 : (2010) 8 Scale 567] )
12. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and, if so, the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the Tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence:
(i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary;
(ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement;
(iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is, the permanent disability suffered by the person.
If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity.
13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what MACT No.532/2024 Anil Vs. Nitu & Ors. Page No. 23 of 48 activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood.
.
.
.
.
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 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.""
MACT No.532/2024 Anil Vs. Nitu & Ors. Page No. 24 of 48
15. The above-said principles have been placed reliance upon in a recent judgment reported as Sidram Vs. The Divisional Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd and Anr., arising out of SLP (Civil) no. 19277 of 2018 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as decided on 16.11.2022.
16. It is settled proposition of law as held in catena of judgments that "just compensation" should include all elements that would go to place the victim in as near a position as she or he was in, before the occurrence of the accident. Whilst no amount of money or other material compensation can erase the trauma, pain and suffering that a victim undergoes after a serious accident, (or replace the loss of a loved one), monetary compensation is the manner known to law, whereby society assures some measure of restitution to those who survive, and the victims who have to face their lives.
17. PECUNIARY DAMAGES A. Damages under pecuniary heads primarily involves reimbursement of actual amount spent on account of injury suffered in an accident to undo the monetary loss, suffered by the claimant, as ascertainable from the evidence on record. Given hereunder are various heads under which compensation for pecuniary damages is assessed:
A. Expenditure on Medical Treatment:
(i) PW1 / Claimant testified that he has incurred a substantial amount upon his treatment. He has filed original medical bills amounting to Rs. 15,804/- on record as Ex.PW1/7. Sundry miscellaneous expenses cannot be ruled out considering the MACT No.532/2024 Anil Vs. Nitu & Ors. Page No. 25 of 48 nature of injuries. An additional Rs. 5,000/- is awarded to claimant. Accordingly claimant is awarded Rs. 20,804/- towards medical treatment expenditure.
B. Expenditure on Conveyance :
(ii) No bill in respect of conveyance charges incurred has been filed on record. Claimant has however deposed that a significant sum was spent upon conveyance during the period of treatment.
It is duly noted that the claimant had suffered serious multiple injuries as a result of the accident and had to undergo prolonged active treatment for several months post accident including 38 days of hospitalization in AIIMS Trauma Center and follow-up visits to medical facilities. It is also noted that his right leg was amputated in operative procedures due to serious injuries. In view of the nature and extent of injuries, it is reasonable to presume that the claimant would also have required the assistance of a support person to accompany him during such visits and manage mobility. Taking into account the attendant hardship, frequency of visits, a sum Rs. 50,000/- is awarded under the head of conveyance.
(C) Expenditure on special diet : (i) No specific bills for special diet have been placed on
record. However, considering the grievous and multiple injuries sustained by the patient including amputation of right leg, it is evident that a prolonged recovery period requiring enhanced nutritional support would have been necessary. The nature of the treatment, including multiple major surgeries and prolonged hospitalization, strongly indicates the prescription of a special and protein-rich diet to support wound healing, immunity, and MACT No.532/2024 Anil Vs. Nitu & Ors. Page No. 26 of 48 overall rehabilitation. Accordingly, taking into account the prolonged duration of treatment and the critical need for adequate nutrition, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded under the head of special diet.
(D) Cost of nursing/attendant :
(i) No specific expenditure has been filed towards charges paid to attendant during treatment and recovery phases post accident. Considering the nature of the injury and below knee amputation in right leg, it is evident that he would have needed assistance during prolonged or post-surgery care (he underwent multiple surgeries) and further in the extended recovery period. Even though he is being compensated under a separate head for a prosthetic limb, it is well known that artificial limbs, do not fully restore the natural functioning of a leg. There would always be some physical limitations like climbing stairs, walking on uneven surfaces, balancing, or standing for long durations will remain a challenge. In such circumstances, the support of an attendant, even if it is a family member, becomes a necessity. It is also settled that compensation under this head is payable even when the attendant is a family member and no direct payment is made. Keeping in view the permanent nature of the disability, the claimant's limited mobility, and the likely continued need for support in daily life, an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- appears reasonable to be awarded under the head of attendant.
(E) Loss of Income/earning : (i) PW1 / Claimant has deposed in his evidentiary affidavit
(Ex.PW1/X) that he was working as Store Incharge with a company called Watcon International at S-36, Okhla Industrial MACT No.532/2024 Anil Vs. Nitu & Ors. Page No. 27 of 48 Area, Okhla Phase-2 and getting a salary of Rs.25,000/- per month. However, during cross examination, he clarified that he was unable to produce any document with respect to such income or avocation. He also deposed that he was a graduate. In support of which, he filed his degree/ Marksheet (Ex.PW1/5). Further as per Aadhar Card Ex.PW1/1, claimant was a resident of Delhi at the time of accident. It is noted that claimants as well as Insurance Company both have filed their calculation based on minimum wages. As such, in the absence of any document of employment, income of injured is considered as per minimum wages applicable for Graduate in the State of NCT of Delhi at the time of accident which was Rs. 22,744/-.
(ii) The injured sustained severe and multiple traumatic injuries in the accident. As per Discharge Summary, he remained hospitalized for almost 38 days in AIIMS Trauma Center where he underwent multiple operative procedures including amputation of his right leg (below knee). He has filed several OPD prescriptions post discharge reflecting ongoing treatment and emergent complication. Further, due to ongoing complications, he had undergone follow-up treatment for several months post accident as evident from the record. It is thus held that injured would not have been able to resume his job for at least 8 months post accident.
Total loss of income is calculated to be Rs. 22,744/- x 8 = Rs.1,81,952/-
(F) Loss of future income/earning : (i) It is settled that a person is required to be compensated not
just for the physical injury but also for the loss he has suffered as MACT No.532/2024 Anil Vs. Nitu & Ors. Page No. 28 of 48 well as the loss which he might entail for the rest of his life on account of those injuries which he sustained in the accident. This necessarily means that he is required to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy normal amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the injury, his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (Support drawn from the judgment titled as C. K. Subramania Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair (1969) 3 SCC 64.
(ii) Disability Assessment Certificate was received as per which he was opined to have suffered 70% permanent physical disability in right lower limb (below amputation).
(iii) Before proceeding further, it is important to understand as to what disability means and also types thereof. This aspect has been delved into by Hon'ble SC in Raj Kumar (supra):
"8. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a human being. Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor accident injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 ("the Disabilities Act", for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in Section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose MACT No.532/2024 Anil Vs. Nitu & Ors. Page No. 29 of 48 of claiming compensation."
(iv) The term 'disability' means the decrements to the functional efficacy of body of injured whereas 'functioning' encompass all the body functions and activities for an independent life. Functional disability is to determine the extent of loss or extent of restrictive functionality considering the nature of activities required to be necessarily performed in efficient discharge of duties and the limb effected. This computes the extent of adverse effect of physical disability upon the functional efficacy of an injured person, in turn adversely impacting his earning capacity. The process entails understanding and enumerating the skill set required for performing specific activities. To sum up, functional disability basically measures the extent of ability having been compromised to carry out basic everyday tasks or even more complex tasks required for and independent living. The limitations may occur on account of disability in the personal sphere, in the social sphere and in the occupational sphere. In the personal sphere it may encompass the daily activities of a person, his body function and his involvement in basis life situations. At the societal level, it could mean difficulty in involvement and participation in social and community activities interfering the interpersonal interaction and relationship adversely impacting the civic life. When disability restricts the vocation or employment avenues to make earning for his living, it falls in the category of disability in the occupational sphere. The disability might occur on account of age or any illness and in the case at hand by way of an accident. A person living a normal life in particular set of circumstance and making MACT No.532/2024 Anil Vs. Nitu & Ors. Page No. 30 of 48 his living by engaging in any work has suffered disability which might impead his daily life activities, both on a personal and social scale and might also impact his ability to continue earning as much as before and his future employment avenues.
(v) What is thus required to be assessed is the effect and impact of disability upon the working efficiency of injured and whether it would adversely impact his earning capabilities in future. It is settled that the Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity.
(vi) Hon'ble SC laid down certain guidelines for the Tribunal to be able to arrive at an objective figure to quantify the loss for the purpose of computing the compensation in the judgment of Raj Kumar (supra). Relevant extracts of this judgment for the purpose of further discussion are reproduced hereunder:
"Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability
9. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the same as 45% permanent disability with reference to the whole body. The extent of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of a percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole body. If there is 60% permanent disability of the right hand and 80% permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent of permanent disability with reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the body have suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to the whole body cannot obviously exceed 100%.
10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and impact MACT No.532/2024 Anil Vs. Nitu & Ors. Page No. 31 of 48 of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation.
11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that the percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation. (See for example, the decisions of this Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC 254 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1258 : (2010) 10 Scale 298] and Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC 341 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1285 : (2010) 8 Scale 567] )
12. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and, if so, the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the Tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence:
(i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary;
(ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement;
(iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is, the permanent disability suffered by the person.
If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it MACT No.532/2024 Anil Vs. Nitu & Ors. Page No. 32 of 48 will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity.
13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood.
.
.
.
.
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 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, MACT No.532/2024 Anil Vs. Nitu & Ors. Page No. 33 of 48 age, education and other factors."
(vii) Further in the case of "Mohan Soni v Ram Avtar Tomar & Ors. I (2012) ACC 1 (SC), the question at hand was deliberated and following observations as relevant in the context were made:
"In the context of loss of future earning, any physical disability resulting from an accident has to be judged with reference to the nature of work being performed by the person suffering the disability. This is the basic premise and once that is grasped, it clearly follows that the same injury or loss may affect two different persons in different ways. Take the case of a marginal farmer who does his cultivation work himself and ploughs his land with his own two hands; or the puller of a cycle-rickshaw, one of the main means of transport in hundreds of small towns all over the country. The loss of one of the legs either to the marginal farmer or the cycle-rickshaw-puller would be the end of the road insofar as their earning capacity is concerned. But in case of a person engaged in some kind of desk work in an office, the loss of a leg may not have the same effect. The loss of a leg (or for that matter the loss of any limb) to anyone is bound to have very traumatic effects on one's personal, family or social life but the loss of one of the legs to a person working in the office would not interfere with his work/earning capacity in the same degree as in the case of a marginal farmer or a cycle-rickshaw-puller.
(viii) The question of assessment of impact of disability on the earning capacity has been dealt in several cases but it is understood that each case has to be evaluated on its contextual dynamics established by way of evidence at hand. It brings us to a question whether extent of permanent disability as medically determined can simply be taken to be the extent of functional disability and hence, the loss of earning capacity. It has been held in various pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Hon'ble High Court that equating the two as a criteria would result in an inobjective and absurd compensation. There however, might be certain cases where the two would correspond to each other but it cannot be mechanically applied rather requires MACT No.532/2024 Anil Vs. Nitu & Ors. Page No. 34 of 48 evaluation of applicable factors independently in each case to reach at a fair quantification of loss of earning capacity.
(ix) In the case of Raj Kumar (supra) the physical functional disability of left leg was assessed to be 75% and total body disability at 37.5 %. In this case, functional disability was also assessed at 75% and it was observed that the extent of physical functional disability has to be considered so as to grant just and proper compensation towards loss of future earning as the earning capacity of injured was totally negated having been rendered incapable of doing any manual work. It was also held that if permanent disability in relation to particular limb renders the injured permanently disabled from pursuing his normal vocation or any other similar work, there is no reason as to why compensation should be granted on the basis of physical disability in relation to whole body. In another matter of Syed Sadiq Etc vs Divisional Manager,United India AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT 1052, where functional disability was considered to be 65% by Hon'ble High Court in case of a vegetable vendor whose right leg had to be amputated was set aside and it was observed that loss of limb is often equivalet to loss of livelihood specially in manual labour cases and determined the functional disability at 85 percent. In another matter of Arvind Kumar Mishra, injured suffered greivious injuries and remained in coma for about 2 months and was held to be permanently disabled to the extent of 70% with his right hand amputated whereas his loss of earning capacity was held to be 90%. Similarly in case of K Janardhan v United India Insurance Company AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2384, Hon'ble Supereme Court of India, held that a tanker driver suffered 100% MACT No.532/2024 Anil Vs. Nitu & Ors. Page No. 35 of 48 functional disability and incapacity to earn as a tanker driver as his right leg was amputated from the knee. In the case of Pappu Deo Yadav v Naresh Kumar, MAC App. 117/2018, injured suffered loss of an arm and therefore, was unable to carry out his functions as a typist / data entry operator and thus acknowleding the impact of injury upon the income generating capacity of victim, the extent of functional disablement and loss of income generating earning capacity was equated with the extent of permanent disablement as medically assessed at 89%. Similarly, in the case of Sidram (supra), injured suffered paraplegia due to accident and was medically assessed with permanent disability to the tune of 45%, however, he was held to have suffered 100% loss of earning capacity.
(x) Claimant suffered multiple serious injuries in the accident, including distal leg and right foot crush injuries with complete degloving of skin including the heel pad with exposed muscles and tendon. His right leg also had to amputated below knee rendering him permanent disabled on account of partial loss of a limb. As mentioned earlier, claimant has been assessed with 70% permanent physical disability. PW1 in his evidentiary affidavit (Ex.PW1/X) deposed that he was working as Store Incharge with Watcon International at S-36, Okhla Industrial Area, Okhla Phase-2. With impaired mobility, he would face significant difficulty in standing for long periods, walking without assistive support, climbing stairs, and performing tasks that require continuous movement or handling heavy materials activities that are integral to the role of a Store Incharge. The disability will not only affect his day to day chores of life but also restrict him while doing any job in future which requires physical activeness.
MACT No.532/2024 Anil Vs. Nitu & Ors. Page No. 36 of 48 Considering the extent of physical impairment and the functional difficulties arising from the injuries, it would be reasonable and just to assess his functional disability to the tune of 70% with respect to his capacity to earn a livelihood.
(F1) Future Prospect:
(i) It is also held therein that future prospect (as laid down in the well considered judgment of National Insurance Company v Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680) shall be payable, not only in fatal cases but also in the case of permanent disability. The observations made in the said case as relevant to the context are reproduced hereunder:
"6. The principle consistently followed by this court in assessing motor vehicle compensation claims, is to place the victim in as near a position as she or he was in before the accident, with other compensatory directions for loss of amenities and other payments. These general principles have been stated and reiterated in several decisions.
7. Two questions arise for consideration: one, whether in cases of permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor accident, the claimant can seek, apart from compensation for future loss of income, amounts for future Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. [Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683. This court referred to the pronouncements in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 551; Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka (2009) 6 SCC 1; Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan (2009) 13 SCC 422; Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343. Govind Yadav spelt out these principles by stating that the courts should, "in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily. If the victim of the accident suffers permanent disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the loss of earning and his inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident." These decisions were also followed in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar Mohanty, (2018) 3 SCC 686. prospects too; and two, the extent of disability. On the first question, the High Court no doubt, is technically correct in holding that Pranay Sethi involved assessment of compensation in a case where the victim died. However, it went MACT No.532/2024 Anil Vs. Nitu & Ors. Page No. 37 of 48 wrong in saying that later, the three-judge bench decision in Jagdish was not binding, but rather that the subsequent decision in Anant10 to the extent that it did not award compensation for future prospects, was binding. This court is of the opinion that there was no justification for the High Court to have read the previous rulings of this court, to exclude the possibility of compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement. Such a narrow reading of Pranay Sethi11 is illogical, because it denies altogether the possibility of the living victim progressing further in life in accident cases - and admits such possibility of future prospects, in case of the victim's death. .
.
(ii). Hon'ble Supreme Court further discussed several cases involving permanent disability and observed as under:
20. Courts should not adopt a stereotypical or myopic approach, but instead, view the matter taking into account the realities of life, both in the assessment of the extent of disabilities, and compensation under various heads.
.
.
....What is to be seen, as emphasized by decision after decision, is the impact of the injury upon the income generating capacity of the victim. The loss of a limb (a leg or arm) and its severity on that account is to be judged in relation to the profession, vocation or business of the victim; there cannot be a blind arithmetic formula for ready application. On an overview of the principles outlined in the previous decisions, it is apparent that the income generating capacity of the appellant was undoubtedly severely affected".
(iii) PW-1 has filed her Aadhar Card as Ex.PW1/1 on record as per which her date of birth is 14.02.2000, therefore, his age as on the date of accident was about 23 years. Since the injured was under the age of between the age of 40 to 50 years (at the time of accident) and purportedly earing fixed income (minimum wages), thus as mandated in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) and other case laws, the percentage towards future prospect is taken to be @ 40 %. Further, as tabulated in the case of Sarla Verma MACT No.532/2024 Anil Vs. Nitu & Ors. Page No. 38 of 48 (supra), multiplier of 18 is applicable.
(iv) In view of the above discussion of law, the calculation under future loss of income in the present case is as under:
(a) Annual income (Rs. 22,744/- x 12) = Rs.2,72,928/-
(b) Future prospect (40% of Rs.2,72,928/-) = Rs. 1,09,171/-
__________________
(c) Total = Rs. 3,82,099/-
(d) Thus, Multiplicand = Rs. 3,82,099/-
(e) Hence, the 'Total Loss of Future Income' shall be :-
Percentage of Functional Disability (Multiplicand X Multiplier).
70% ( Rs. 3,82,099/- X 18) = Rs. 48,14,447/- 18. NON-PECUNIARY LOSS (A) Non pecuniary damages are general damages to
compensate the injured for mental and physical shock, pain, suffering, loss of expectation of life, inconvenience, hardship, frustration, stress, dejectment and unhappiness suffered by him on account of injuries sustained in the accident. It takes into account all the aspects of a normal life which deluded injured on account of accident. Given the nature of heads covered, it is bound to involve guess work on the part of Tribunal involving some hypothetical consideration as well, primarily considering the special circumstances of the injured and the effect of those MACT No.532/2024 Anil Vs. Nitu & Ors. Page No. 39 of 48 upon his future life.
A1. Damage for pain, suffering as well as mental and physical shock:
(i) The injured must have suffered significant pain and emotional distress due to the nature of the injury sustained. This, coupled with the limitations it imposed on his ability to perform daily activities and fulfill his work obligations, must have led to both physical pain and mental trauma. Considering the pain, suffering, and trauma endured during the recovery process, an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is awarded for the pain and suffering caused by the injury.
B. Loss of amenities of life:
(i) It compensates the victim on account of his inability to enjoy the basic amenities of life as any other normal person can, taking into account the age and the deprivation he would have to undergo and suffer due to injuries. Accordingly an amount of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities considering the nature of injury and the extent of disability.
C. Loss of Future Medical Bills:
(i) During cross examination by counsel for insurance company. PW -1/injured deposed that he has already availed artificial limb post amputation, however, admitted that he cannot produce any bill for purchase of such artificial limb or any document to show from where such limb was purchased. He denied the suggestion that such artificial limb had been provided by AIIMS. A quotation of Care Rehabilitation Center has been filed as Ex.PW1/10 towards Fitness Proposal of 'Right Trans MACT No.532/2024 Anil Vs. Nitu & Ors. Page No. 40 of 48 Tibial Prosthesis' which prescribed the cost of Rs.12,45,400/-
with 2 years of warranty and life time free service and maintenance (excluding socket change and liner). There is no specific mention in the quotation about life span of artificial limb. Any other prescription / quotation for comparison has not been filed. The Prosthetist was not examined to prove the quotation. Therefore, there is no explanation on record about any specification of prescribed fitment tailored and customized to the requirement of victim.
(ii) Considering the amputation, however, subject to the medical prescriptions and objectivity, it is evident that injured shall require to avail support of an artificial limb in order to attain sense of normalcy towards his identity and some degree of independence. It is settled that injured need to be compensated so as to enable him to purchase the prosthetic limb and maintain the same till a certain age of average life expectancy. It is noted that the age of injured was only 23 years at the time of accident and if we consider average age upto 70 years, he has almost 50 years to live a life with physical limitation with the help of artificial limb. In the Written Submissions/ Computation, Ld. Counsel for claimant has sought an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs towards prosthetic limb. Having said that, as requirement for artificial limb and yearly maintenance cannot be ruled out, A lumpsum amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- is awarded towards future medical expenses including the need of an artificial / prosthetic limb for all times to come. It is noted that the artificial limbs require yearly maintenance with an average cost of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/-. As mentioned above, any evidence has not been led on the aspect, therefore, lumpsum amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- is awarded MACT No.532/2024 Anil Vs. Nitu & Ors. Page No. 41 of 48 towards the yearly maintenance. In total Rs. 13,00,000/- is awarded towards future medical bills. These amounts towards future medical expenses shall not entail any interest from the date of accident till the date of judgment.
D. Compensation for disfigurement:
(i) Injured has his right below knee amputated. Disfigurement basically means something which is not in form or shape or figure which implies that the appearance of someone was spoiled on account of injuries sustained in the accident. In the case of Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain Vs. Regional Manager, UP State Road Transport Corporation Civil Appeal No. 9070-9071 of 2022, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India highlighted the need to consider the socio economic background of the claimant while dealing with the cases of bodily disabilities observing that such disabilities make them prone to further discrimination and awarded Rs. 2 lakhs towards disfigurement involving 80% permanent disability with amputation of the right leg above the knee. As such, an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- is awarded under this head.
E. Loss of Marriage Prospect:
(i) Ld. Counsel for the claimant contended that the injured was unmarried at the time of accident and, therefore, he ought to be adequately compensated considering that his marriage prospects have been adversely affected due to the amputation.
The injured, aged only 23 years, had to undergo immense physical and emotional trauma at such a young age, which has permanently impacted the wholesome enjoyment of his life. The MACT No.532/2024 Anil Vs. Nitu & Ors. Page No. 42 of 48 amputation, being a lasting physical deformity, carries a social stigma and inevitably poses challenges in securing a suitable life partner in future. Such disability directly restricts his free choice in selecting a life partner, thereby diminishing the prospects of marriage. Taking into account the age of the injured, the trauma suffered, and the adverse effect on his marital prospects, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- is awarded to the claimant towards loss of marriage prospect.
19. The compensation awarded against pecuniary and non- pecuniary damages under various heads is being sequentially put in a tabulated form hereunder for ease of reference to all concerned:
Sl. no. Pecuniary loss : - Quantum
1. (i) Expenditure on treatment Rs. 20,804/-
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance Rs. 50,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 50,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs.2,00,000/-
(v) Loss of income Rs.1,81,952/-
(vi) Loss of future Income: Rs. 48,14,447/-
2. Non-Pecuniary Loss :
(i) Compensation of Pain and Rs.5,00,000/-
suffering as well as mental and
physical shock
(ii) Loss of amenities of life : Rs.50,000/-
(iii) Future medical bills/ Artificial Rs.13,00,000/-
Limb
The amounts towards
future medical expenses/
MACT No.532/2024 Anil Vs. Nitu & Ors. Page No. 43 of 48
Artificial Limb shall not
entail any interest from
the date of accident till
the date of judgment.
(iii) Disfiguration : Rs.2,00,000/-
(iv) Marriage prospect Rs.2,00,000/-
Total Compensation Rs.75,67,203/-
Interest As directed below
20. Interest:
(a) It is settled that any fixed rate of interest cannot be
prescribed for all cases at all times and would largely depend upon the prevailing rate of interest as per the applicable guidelines. As such, interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum is deemed fit and accordingly granted in the present case. (Reliance placed upon National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Yad Ram MAC APP 526/2018 also referred and relied in case of The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Sohan Lal & Ors. MAC APP 70/2024 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court).
21. Liability:-
21(a) Insurance Company has conceded valid and effective Insurance Policy on the date of accident and has not raised any statutory defence. It has already been held that accident occurred on account of speedy and rash driving of offending vehicle. It is settled that Insurance Company is responsible to indemnify owner / insured for vicarious liability incurred by tort feaser. Therefore, such principal award amount/compensation will be payable by the insurance company of offending vehicle with simple interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the MACT No.532/2024 Anil Vs. Nitu & Ors. Page No. 44 of 48 date of filing of DAR till actual realization. The amount awarded in respect of future medical bills will not carry any interest. (If there is any order regarding excluding of interest for specific period same be complied at the time of calculation of award amount. Further, in case the matter adjourned sine die, interest for the period i.e. the date of concerned order till revival of the case, shall not be awarded. Further, if any auction proceeds is received, same be adjusted in the final award amount).
22. The award amount shall be deposited by the Insurance Company. Counsel for the Insurance Company is also directed to furnish the complete case details, including the MACT case number, CNR number, FIR number, name of Police Station, name of the deceased/claimant(s), date of accident, and any other relevant particulars, to the State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi at the time of getting the amount deposited. The amount shall be deposited through RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in the account titled "MACT FUND PARKING", Account No. 00000042706870765, IFSC Code SBIN0014244, MICR Code 110002342, under intimation to the Nazir of this Tribunal.
23. Release of Award Amount/ Disbursement
(a) Out of total award amount, Rs.60,00,000/- is kept in form of monthly FDR of Rs.50,000/- each. Remaining amount shall be released in his bank account near his place of residence.
24. In terms of the Practice Directions issued by Hon'ble High Court, vide reference no. 134/Rules/DHC, dated 14.05.2025, the claimant (s) are directed to produce their bank account details along with either a certificate of the banker giving all details of the bank account of the person or persons entitled to receive the MACT No.532/2024 Anil Vs. Nitu & Ors. Page No. 45 of 48 compensation including IFS Code, or a copy of cancelled cheque of the bank account to this Tribunal with seven days of the date of Award, if not already placed on record. They are also directed to file their Aadhar Card and PAN Card if not already filed.
25. Directions to the Branch Manager, SBI, Saket Court Complex
(a) The Manager, SBI, Saket Court Complex, is further directed to verify the documents and details submitted by the claimant pertaining to their bank account, and upon proper verification, under certification of the Branch Manager (of the bank whose details have been provided by the claimant for release of the compensation amount) disburse the amount, directed to be released to the claimant, directly into the verified bank account of the claimant under notice to the Tribunal.
26. Directions with respect to Fixed Deposit:
(a) As per Practice Directions, Hon'ble High Court, vide reference no.
134/Rules/DHC, dated 14.05.2025, the bank shall invest the amount to be deposited in fixed deposit with any nationalised bank and fixed deposit shall be with the standing instructions to the bank to renew the same after periodical intervals till further orders are passed by the Tribunal.
(b) The Bank shall not permit any joint name (s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of victim i.e. the savings bank account of the claimant shall be individual savings bank account and not a joint account.
(c) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant.
(d) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(e) The maturity amounts of the FDR (s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(f) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on MACT No.532/2024 Anil Vs. Nitu & Ors. Page No. 46 of 48 the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(g) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/ or debit card to claimant (s). However, in case the debit card and/ or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit freeze the account of the claimant so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant from any other branch of the bank.
(h) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque book and / or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
27. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD.
1 Date of accident 21.08.2023 2 Name of injured Anil 3 Age of the injured 23 years 4 Occupation of the Not proved.
injured 5 Income of the injured Minimum wages for graduate workman.
6 Nature of injury Grievous + Amputation 7 Medical treatment As per record.
taken by the injured:
8 Period of As per record.
Hospitalization MACT No.532/2024 Anil Vs. Nitu & Ors. Page No. 47 of 48 9 Whether any Grievous + Amputation permanent disability?
28. Copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost. The copy of award be also sent to the Ld. Secretary DLSA and Ld. Concerned criminal court. Digitally signed by SHELLY SHELLY ARORA ARORA Date:
2025.10.30 17:04:35 +0530 Shelly Arora PO (MACT)-02, SE/Saket/Delhi 30.10.2025 MACT No.532/2024 Anil Vs. Nitu & Ors. Page No. 48 of 48