Delhi District Court
Bachan Singh Negi (Dar) vs Prince Mehta Etc on 20 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. ADITI GARG
DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
PO MACT (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No. 524/2023
FIR No. 289/2023
PS Sarita Vihar
U/s 279/338 IPC
CNR No.: DLSE01-011874-2023
Bachan Singh Negi Vs. Prince Mehta & Ors.
(compensation case of injured Bachan Singh Negi)
Bachan Singh Negi (since deceased)
S/o Sh. Kedar Singh Negi
......Original / injured / claimant
Through Legal Heirs:
Vijaya Devi (wife)
Laxman Singh (son)
Harendra Singh (son)
R/o A-23, Alli Vihar, Sarita Vihar,
New Delhi.
...............Legal Heirs
Versus
1. Prince Mehta
S/o Gopal Mehta
R/o H.No.106, Gali no.1, Deepawali Enclave
Part-II, Ismailpur,
Faridabad, Haryana.
......R-1/ Driver cum owner
2. Tata AIG Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.
Pragnya Honda, E-49/10, MA Anandmayee
Marg, Pocket D, Okhla Phase-II, Okhla Industrial
MACT No. 524/2023 Bachan Singh Negi Vs.Prince & Anr. Page No. 1 of 24 (Ravi)
Estate, New Delhi.
....R-2/ Insurance Co.
Date of accident : 18.06.2023
Date of filing of DAR : 17.11.2023
Date of Decision : 20.01.2026.
AWARD
1. DAR
(a) The Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred to as
"DAR"), as filed by the Investigating Officer, is being treated as
a claim petition under Section 166(1) read with Section 166(4) of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The present claim pertains to the
alleged road traffic accident involving Bachan Singh Negi
(hereinafter referred to as the injured), who is stated to have
suffered injuries due to the offending vehicle bearing
Registration No. DL 3SFB 2146. The said vehicle was being
driven and owned by Sh. Prince Mehta (hereinafter referred to as
Respondent No.1) and was insured with M/s Tata AIG General
Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Respondent No.2).
2. Brief Facts as per DAR:
(a) Preliminary information regarding the accident in question was received at PS Sarita Vihar vide DD No. 34 dated 18.06.2023. Upon receipt of the said information, police officials immediately reached the spot of the accident near Metro Pillar No. 306, Mathura Road, where they found the offending motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-3SFB-2146 lying in an accidental condition. On enquiry from persons present at the MACT No. 524/2023 Bachan Singh Negi Vs.Prince & Anr. Page No. 2 of 24 (Ravi) spot, it was revealed that the injured, Bachchan Singh Negi, was standing at the side of the road to cross the same, when the said motorcycle, coming from the Badarpur side and being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, hit him, as a result of which both the motorcyclist and the injured sustained injuries. It was further informed that both the injured persons had already been shifted to the hospital by public persons. In the meanwhile, upon receipt of DD No. 39A regarding the MLC, ASI Layak Ali reached Apollo Hospital, where he obtained the MLC of injured Bachchan Singh Negi, who was declared unfit for statement.
After completing the necessary hospital formalities, the police officials again reached the spot. The crime team was called, the spot was inspected, photographs were taken, and statements of eye-witnesses were recorded. One of the eye-witness, namely Happu Singh, stated that he and the injured Bachchan Singh Negi were working as security guards at A-43, Mohan Cooperative, Sarita Vihar, and were on night duty from 08:00 p.m. to 08:00 a.m. He stated that at about 06:20 a.m., the injured was going to buy tea and was in the process of crossing the road, when the offending motorcycle, coming from the Badarpur side, struck him, resulting in injuries to both the injured and the motorcyclist. He categorically stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending motorcycle.
(b) Consequent to the accident and the MLC, an FIR was registered. Necessary investigation was carried out, including preparation of the site plan, recording of statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., seizure of the offending vehicle, and seizure and verification of documents pertaining to the offending vehicle, which were found to be in order. The injured Bachchan MACT No. 524/2023 Bachan Singh Negi Vs.Prince & Anr. Page No. 3 of 24 (Ravi) Singh Negi was subsequently contacted by the police; however, even after discharge, he remained medically unfit to give a statement. The statement of his wife was, however, recorded. As per the MLC, the injuries sustained by the injured were opined to be grievous and relevant penal provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act were added. After completion of thorough investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet before the concerned criminal court for causing injuries to the injured by driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The Detailed Accident Report (DAR) was also filed before this Tribunal.
3. Reply:
(a) In response to the DAR, respondent no.1 filed his written statement denying any rashness or negligence on his part and alleging false implication. It is contended that the injured himself was negligent as he allegedly attempted to cross the road without observing traffic from both sides and in the absence of a zebra crossing. It is further stated that the offending motorcycle was validly insured at the time of the accident and, therefore, respondent no.1 denied his personal liability to pay any compensation.
(b) The insurance company has filed a legal offer in the present case, which draws an inference that it has not disputed either the occurrence of the accident or the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. However, the said legal offer was not accepted by the claimant.
(c) During the course of proceedings, it was brought to the notice of the Tribunal that the claimant/injured had expired. An MACT No. 524/2023 Bachan Singh Negi Vs.Prince & Anr. Page No. 4 of 24 (Ravi) application under Order I Rule 10 CPC was thereafter filed by the family members of the deceased along with the death certificate seeking impleadment of the legal heirs. The said application was allowed and an amended memo of parties was filed accordingly.
4. Issues:
(a) From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 13.02.2025:
i). Whether the injured suffered injuries in a road traffic accident on 18.06.2023 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no. DL 3SFB 2146 being driven & owned by R-1 and insured with R-2? OPP.
ii). Whether the injured is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?OPP
iii). Relief.
5. Evidence:
(a) The matter was thereafter listed for petitioner's evidence.
The wife of the injured (since deceased), namely Smt. Vijaya Devi, appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A. She proved on record various documents, including the identity proofs of the deceased and the legal heirs, educational documents of the deceased, medical records, and the DAR, which were exhibited as Ex. PW-1/1 to Ex. PW-1/9 (colly). PW-1 was duly cross-examined by the learned counsel for the insurance company.
(b) No further, evidence was led by petitioner side. Petitioner MACT No. 524/2023 Bachan Singh Negi Vs.Prince & Anr. Page No. 5 of 24 (Ravi) Evidence was then closed. Matter was then listed for Respondent Evidence.
(c) R-1/ driver cum owner chose not to lead any evidence.
(d) Insurance Company also not led any evidence and as such Respondent Evidence was closed and matter was then listed for final arguments.
(e) Respondent Evidence was closed. Matter was then listed for Final Arguments.
6. Final Arguments:
(a) Final arguments were addressed by learned counsel for the claimant as well as learned counsel for respondents including driver cum owner as well as insurance company.
(b) Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. It was argued that the said fact has not been disputed, as is evident from the legal offer filed by the insurance company. It was further submitted that the injured expired on 06.01.2024, approximately six months after the accident, leaving behind his wife and two major sons as his legal heirs, who have already been impleaded on record. It was contended that on account of the untimely death of the victim, the family has suffered immense pain, suffering, and financial hardship, and thus prayed for just and fair compensation.
(c) Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.1 argued that the accident did not occur due to any negligence on the part of respondent no.1/driver. It was contended that the injured himself MACT No. 524/2023 Bachan Singh Negi Vs.Prince & Anr. Page No. 6 of 24 (Ravi) was negligent as he allegedly attempted to cross the road without due caution and suddenly came in front of the motorcycle, leaving the driver with no time to control the vehicle.
(d) Learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that it has already filed a legal offer, as the occurrence of the accident and rash and negligent driving are not disputed by the insurer.
However, it was argued that there is no established nexus between the death of the injured and the injuries sustained in the accident, as the death occurred almost six months after the accident. It was further submitted that no post-mortem examination was conducted to ascertain the cause of death, and therefore, the claim cannot be treated as a fatal accident case. It was urged that compensation, if any, should be assessed only on the basis of injuries sustained. Learned counsel further argued that, as per the medical record, loss of income of the injured can be assessed only for a period of two months. In support of her submissions, learned counsel for the insurance company placed reliance upon the judgments in Smt. Saramma v. Muniappa, MFA No. 7802/2007 (MV) decided by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, and V. Mepherson v. Shiv Charan Singh, MANU/DE/0798/1996, decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, to contend that in the absence of cogent medical evidence, including a post-mortem report, a death occurring much later after the accident cannot automatically be treated as a consequence of the injuries sustained in the said accident.
7. Discussion:
On the basis of material on record, evidence adduced and arguments addressed, issue wise findings are as under :
MACT No. 524/2023 Bachan Singh Negi Vs.Prince & Anr. Page No. 7 of 24 (Ravi) Issue No.1
i). Whether the injured suffered injuries in a road traffic accident on 18.06.2023 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no. DL 3SFB 2146 being driven & owned by R-1 and insured with R-2? OPP.
(a) PW-1, the claimant, has deposed by way of affidavit that on 18.06.2023 at about 06:25 a.m., her husband was standing on the side of Mathura Road near Metro Pillar No. 306, Sarita Vihar, for the purpose of crossing the road, when suddenly the offending motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-3SFB-246, being driven at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, namely Prince, struck him. As a result thereof, he fell down and sustained serious injuries. He was removed to Apollo Hospital, where he remained admitted from 18.06.2023 to 23.08.2023. It is further stated that he later expired on 06.01.2024.
(b) During her cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that she was not present at the spot and that her knowledge about the accident is based on hearsay. She also admitted that after discharge from the hospital on 23.08.2023, her husband did not take any further treatment and that no document has been placed on record to establish a direct nexus between the death and the accident. She further clarified that her husband died at home and no doctor was called, nor was the police informed about his death.
(c) It is true that no eye-witness has been examined by the claimants before this Tribunal. However, it is well settled that in proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act, strict rules of evidence as applicable to criminal trials are not required to be MACT No. 524/2023 Bachan Singh Negi Vs.Prince & Anr. Page No. 8 of 24 (Ravi) followed and the claim has to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities.
(d) In the present case, apart from the oral testimony of PW-1, sufficient contemporaneous documentary and circumstantial material is available on record to establish the occurrence of the accident and the negligence of the driver of the offending motorcycle. The police authorities were promptly informed about the accident and the criminal law was set into motion without any unexplained delay. The FIR was registered on the very same day. The offending motorcycle was recovered from the spot itself in a damaged condition. Both the injured and the motorcyclist were found admitted in the hospital immediately after the accident. The medical records clearly describe the injuries as having been caused due to a road traffic accident.
(e) The police investigation further reveals that a site plan was prepared, notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act was served upon the driver/owner, and mechanical inspection of the offending motorcycle was conducted, which disclosed fresh accidental damage. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., including that of a colleague/security guard of the injured, who specifically narrated the mode and manner of the accident and attributed the same to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle.
(f) Significantly, the insurance company has already filed a legal offer. The filing of a legal offer itself indicates that the insurer, after conducting its own investigation, found no viable defence and did not dispute either the occurrence of the accident or the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending MACT No. 524/2023 Bachan Singh Negi Vs.Prince & Anr. Page No. 9 of 24 (Ravi) vehicle.
(g) The respondents have not led any cogent or reliable evidence in rebuttal to discredit the police record or to probabilise any alternative version of the accident. There is nothing on record to create any doubt regarding the manner of the accident as set up by the claimants.
(h) It is also pertinent to discuss that the insurance company has proposed a deduction of 30% towards alleged contributory negligence on the ground that the injured was also negligent. However, this contention is devoid of merit and is liable to be rejected. No cogent evidence has been led by respondent no.1 or the insurance company to establish any negligent act on the part of the injured. Contributory negligence cannot be presumed and the burden to prove the same squarely lies upon the party alleging it, which burden has not been discharged in the present case. As per the site plan, the spot of accident is shown adjacent to the footpath. There is no foot over-bridge at the spot and no material has been placed on record to show the availability of a zebra crossing. There is also no evidence to suggest that the injured suddenly jumped in front of the offending motorcycle. Mere assertions, without supporting evidence, do not constitute proof of contributory negligence. Accordingly, the plea of contributory negligence is rejected.
(i) Further, the police, after investigation, filed a charge-sheet against the respondent driver for rash and negligent driving. It is well settled that filing of a charge-sheet is a strong corroborative circumstance pointing towards negligence. Accordingly, this Tribunal holds that the accident occurred due to rash and MACT No. 524/2023 Bachan Singh Negi Vs.Prince & Anr. Page No. 10 of 24 (Ravi) negligent driving of the offending motorcycle by driver / R-1. (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 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.)
(j) 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).
(k) In view of the above analysis of material on record including evidence adduced on record, charge-sheet against R-1, it is held that the accident was caused by speedy and reckless driving on the part of driving of the offending vehicle. Issue No.1 is thus decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
MACT No. 524/2023 Bachan Singh Negi Vs.Prince & Anr. Page No. 11 of 24 (Ravi) ISSUE NO. 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?OPP
8. Sec. 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 award by the Claims Tribunal, deposit the entire amount awarded in such manner MACT No. 524/2023 Bachan Singh Negi Vs.Prince & Anr. Page No. 12 of 24 (Ravi) as the Claims Tribunal may direct.
9. 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)
10. 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 Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683.]
11. This Tribunal has been tasked with determination of just compensation. The observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty and Another, (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 MACT No. 524/2023 Bachan Singh Negi Vs.Prince & Anr. Page No. 13 of 24 (Ravi) features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of "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.. ..."
12. 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." Further, Insurance Company in its RE, examined its Legal Manager Sh Sayok Bandyopadhyay as R2W1. Such witness R2W1 tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex.R2W1/A and relied upon various documents including DAR, MACT No. 524/2023 Bachan Singh Negi Vs.Prince & Anr. Page No. 14 of 24 (Ravi) copy of Insurance Policy, Verification Report dated 20.03.2020 issued by Reliance Gen. Ins. Co and copy of complaint dated 06.01.2021 given to DCP, Sarita Vihar. He was then cross examined by LAC for R1.
13. 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 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) MACT No. 524/2023 Bachan Singh Negi Vs.Prince & Anr. Page No. 15 of 24 (Ravi)
(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 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.
MACT No. 524/2023 Bachan Singh Negi Vs.Prince & Anr. Page No. 16 of 24 (Ravi)
14. The abovesaid 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.
15. 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.
16. Loss of Earning
(a) PW-1, the wife of the injured (since deceased), deposed that her husband was working as a security guard with Balaji Security at A-43, Mohan Cooperative, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi, and was earning Rs.22,000/- per month. However, she candidly admitted that no documentary proof regarding the claimed income or employment of her husband has been filed on record. The claimants have also not examined any witness from the employer's side to substantiate the said claim. PW-1 has, however, placed on record the mark sheets and High School certificate of the injured, establishing that he was at least a matriculate. The Aadhar Card of the injured has also been filed, which reflects his residence at Sarita Vihar, South Delhi. In the absence of any cogent documentary evidence regarding the MACT No. 524/2023 Bachan Singh Negi Vs.Prince & Anr. Page No. 17 of 24 (Ravi) income or employment of the injured, and keeping in view his educational qualification of matriculation, his income is assessed on the basis of minimum wages applicable to a matriculate workman in the NCT of Delhi at the time of the accident, which were Rs.20,903/- per month.
(b) Further, the medical record placed on record reveals that the injured had suffered severe traumatic head injuries, for which surgical intervention in the form of left fronto-temporo-parietal decompressive craniotomy with evacuation of acute subdural hematoma (SDH) and duraplasty was performed. The discharge summary records massive acute SDH on the left side with burst temporal lobe, clearly indicating the grave nature of the injuries sustained. During the initial phase of treatment, the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score was extremely low, recorded as E1VTM1, on account of which the injured was intubated and placed on controlled mechanical ventilation (CMV). He remained admitted in the ICU, underwent surgical and medical interventions, and required extensive radiological and blood investigations. The injured remained hospitalized from 18.06.2023 to 23.08.2023, i.e., for a period of more than two months, which by itself demonstrates the seriousness and life- threatening nature of the injuries. Although at the time of discharge he was noted to be "stable and gradually recovering", such observation cannot be construed to mean that the injured had achieved full functional recovery. The expression "gradually recovering" clearly implies an extended and uncertain period of rehabilitation, requiring strict medical supervision, regular follow-ups, continuous medication, and avoidance of any strenuous or gainful activity.
MACT No. 524/2023 Bachan Singh Negi Vs.Prince & Anr. Page No. 18 of 24 (Ravi)
(c) In cases involving severe head injury, prolonged ICU admission, neurosurgical intervention, and depressed GCS, it is medically and legally recognized that the patient remains functionally incapacitated for a substantial period even after discharge from hospital. Therefore, the computation of loss of income for only two months, as proposed by the Insurance Company in its legal offer, is wholly unjustified and unrealistic, particularly when the period of hospitalization itself exceeds two months. Considering the nature of injuries, duration of hospitalization, surgical intervention, and prolonged recovery phase, loss of income for a period of at least six months is fair, reasonable, and fully justified.
(d) Accordingly, the loss of income is calculated as follows:
Rs.20,903/- x 6 =Rs.1,25,418/-
17. Having regard to the law as also discussed above regarding compensation, in the present case award amount is calculated as under:
Sl. no. Pecuniary loss : - Quantum 1. (i) Expenditure on treatment : PW-1 has not Rs.5,000/-
placed any medical bills on record, a fact which she has also admitted during her cross-
examination. However, keeping in view the nature and severity of the injuries suffered by the injured, and notwithstanding the absence of documentary proof of medical expenses, it is reasonable to presume that the injured must have incurred certain miscellaneous expenses towards medicines and related treatment even after discharge from the hospital. Accordingly, a consolidated amount of Rs.5,000/- is awarded under the head of miscellaneous medical expenditure.
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance : PW-1 has not Rs.5000/-
MACT No. 524/2023 Bachan Singh Negi Vs.Prince & Anr. Page No. 19 of 24 (Ravi) placed on record any documentary proof with respect to conveyance expenses. It has further come on record, including in cross-examination, that the injured was admitted in the hospital only once and, after discharge following a prolonged hospitalization of about two months, he did not visit any hospital or medical facility thereafter. In view of these admitted facts, it is evident that the injured did not incur substantial conveyance expenses. Nevertheless, considering the initial hospitalization and attendant requirements, a notional and reasonable sum of Rs. 5,000/- is awarded under the head of conveyance charges.
(iii) Expenditure on special diet : There is Rs.20,000/- nothing on record to show any expenditure towards a special diet. However, considering the nature of the injuries, it can be reasonably presumed that the injured would have required a special, protein-rich diet for prompt recovery. In the absence of documentary proof, compensation towards special diet may be awarded on the basis of reasonable estimation.
(iv) Cost of nursing / attendant : Claimant has Rs.10,000/- not filed any bills towards attendant charges, however, the nature of injuries are such that he would have required services of his family members who attempted to him during admission, treatment and during recovery.
It is settled that the injured is entitled to attendant charges even if services were rendered by family members.
(v) Loss of income : As discussed above Rs.1,25,418/-
2. Non-Pecuniary Loss :
(i) Compensation of mental and physical shock Rs.50,000/-
as well as pain suffering : The injured suffered grievous injuries and remained hospitalized for more than 2 months period. During the recovery period, the injured endured immense pain and mental trauma, which cannot be assessed in monetary terms. However, an effort is being made to compensate for the pain, suffering, and mental and physical shock.
MACT No. 524/2023 Bachan Singh Negi Vs.Prince & Anr. Page No. 20 of 24 (Ravi)
(ii) Loss of amenities of life : The nature of Rs.10,000/- injuries are grievous.
Total Compensation Rs.2,25,418/- 25. 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).
26. LIABILITY
(a) The issue of rash and negligent driving has already been discussed and decided hereinabove, wherein it has been held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1. The Insurance Company has admitted the validity and genuineness of the insurance policy in respect of the offending vehicle on the date of accident and also proposed legal offer. No statutory defence under the Motor Vehicles Act has been pleaded or proved by the Insurance Company. In view of the above facts, and in the absence of any statutory defence, the Insurance Company is under a legal obligation to indemnify the insured/owner for the vicarious liability arising out of the tortious act of respondent no.1. Accordingly, the principal award amount/compensation shall be payable by the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle, along with simple interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of MACT No. 524/2023 Bachan Singh Negi Vs.Prince & Anr. Page No. 21 of 24 (Ravi) filing of the DAR till its actual realization. (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).
27. 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.
28. Release of Award Amount/ Disbursement
(a) Since the injured expired during the course of proceedings, his legal heirs were brought on record. As per the testimony, the legal heirs include the wife and two major sons. It has further come on record that both the sons are married and are earning separately. In view thereof, the entire awarded amount, along with proportionate interest, is directed to be released in the bank account of the wife of the injured (since deceased).
29. In terms of the Practice Directions issued by Hon'ble High Court, vide reference no. 134/Rules/DHC, dated MACT No. 524/2023 Bachan Singh Negi Vs.Prince & Anr. Page No. 22 of 24 (Ravi) 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 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.
30 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.
32. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD.
1 Date of accident 18.06.2023 2 Name of injured Bachan Singh 3 Age of the injured 63 years 4 Occupation of the injured As per record 5 Income of the injured As per minimum wages.
6 Nature injury Grievous injury 7 Medical treatment taken As per record.
MACT No. 524/2023 Bachan Singh Negi Vs.Prince & Anr. Page No. 23 of 24 (Ravi) by the injured:
8 Period of Hospitalization As per record.
9 Whether any permanent Grievous injury disability?
33. 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 concerned criminal court.
Digitally signedADITI by ADITI GARG Date: 2026.01.20 (Pronounced in the GARG 16:17:27 open court on 20.01.2026) +0530 (Aditi Garg) PO-MACT-01 (South-East) Saket Court/ New Delhi 20.01.2026 MACT No. 524/2023 Bachan Singh Negi Vs.Prince & Anr. Page No. 24 of 24 (Ravi)