Delhi District Court
Neelam vs Rohtash Rana on 26 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SHRI TARUN YOGESH
LD. PO-MACT-01, SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT,
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
MACT No. 710/2016
CNR No. DLSW01-000732-2014
DD No. 31 Dated 16.10.2014
PS: Kotwali, Mussoorie, Uttrakhand
In the matter of :
1) Smt. Neelam
W/o Late Rinku @ Rinku Malik
R/o H. No.421, Village Daboda Khurd,
Tehsil Bahadurgarh,
Haryana. ... (Petitioner)
Versus
1) Sh. Ajit Singh
S/o Sh. Bhana Singh
R/o C/o Ajit Singh Deputy Commando SFAI
Type-3, 25 BN SBF Camp, Chhawla,
New Delhi-110071.
2nd Add: V.P.O Bajghera,
Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana. ... (Regd. Owner)
2) ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd.
KLJ Complex, Ist Floor, Block-2,
Plot No.70/A-55, Main Najafgarh Road,
Moti Nagar, New Delhi-110015.
... (Insurer)
... Respondents
Date of Institution : 17.12.2014
Date of Judgment : 26.09.2025
MACT No.710/2016 Neelam Vs. Rohtash Rana & Ors. Page No. 1 of 23
AWAR D
Preface
1. Applications seeking compensation for death of (i) Rinku
@ Rinku Malik; (ii) Master Arjun; (iii) bodily injury to Ms.
Neelam registered on 17.12.2014 AND cross-applications
seeking compensation for death of (iv) Jagbir Rana & (v) bodily
injury to Ms. Sonika registered on 22.09.2015 are taken up to be
decided simultaneously.
Background
2. Brief facts gleaned from applications under section 166 &
140 M.V. Act would reveal that Rinku Malik, his wife Ms.
Neelam, son Master Arjun along with Jagbir Rana and his wife
Ms. Sonika were travelling in Maruti Swift Car
No.HR-26BG-1031 which unfortunately plunged into a deep
gorge on Ghanolti Marg near Baghpat, Mussoorie, Uttrakhand on
16.10.2014 at 8:45 pm resulting in death of Rinku Malik, Master
Arjun & Jagbir Rana AND bodily injury to Ms. Neelam and Ms.
Sonika.
3. D.D. No.31 was registered at PS Kotwali, Mussoorie,
Uttrakhand on 16.10.2014 and 'Final Report' prepared on the
basis of investigation and Postmortem Report No. 17/14 & 18/14
of Jagbir Rana & Rinku Malik was filed stating that accident was
caused as Jagbir Rana driving at high speed could not control the
car which plunged into the gorge resulting in death of Rinku
Malik, Jagbir Rana & Master Arjun AND bodily injury to Ms.
Neelam and Ms. Sonika.
4. As averred in 'First Set of Applications' registered on
17.12.2014, Jagbir Rana driving the vehicle at very high speed
MACT No.710/2016 Neelam Vs. Rohtash Rana & Ors. Page No. 2 of 23
lost control of Swift Car No.HR-26BG-1031 which plunged into
a deep gorge on Ghanolti Marg near Baghpat, Mussoorie,
Uttrakhand on 16.10.2014 at 8:45 pm resulting in death of Rinku
Malik, Master Arjun & Jagbir Rana AND bodily injury to Ms.
Neelam and Ms. Sonika.
Defence
5. Respondent Rohtash Rana (father of Jagbir) joined
proceedings but did not file any reply. He was eventually
dropped by petitioners on 08.03.2017.
6. Respondent Ajit Singh (registered owner) has disputed
liability to pay compensation by contending that (i) Jagbir Rana
(driver) was holding valid & effective licence at the time of
accident AND (ii) liability, if any, would be borne by the
insurance company as Maruti Swift Car No.HR-26BG-1031 was
insured against 'Third Party Risk'.
7. Respondent ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. on
its part has admitted Private Car Package Policy
No.3001/83067490/00/000 issued in the name of Ajit Singh from
15.11.2013 to 14.11.2014 and reserved its right to raise statutory
defences under section 134(c), 147, 149 and all defences under
section 170 of M.V. Act in case the driver and owner would fail
to contest the case.
Inquiry
8. Following issues were settled on 17.05.2016 and matter
was posted for petitioner's evidence.
i. Whether Arjun S/o Rinku @ Rinku Malik,
Sh. Rinku @ Rinku Malik sustained fatal
injuries and Smt. Neelam W/o Sh. Rinku @
Rinku Malik sustained injuries in a motor
MACT No.710/2016 Neelam Vs. Rohtash Rana & Ors. Page No. 3 of 23
vehicle accident dt. 16.10.2014 caused due
to rash or negligent driving of vehicle (CAR)
No.HR-26BG-1031 being driven by
deceased driver namely Jagbir owned by
Respondent No.2 and Insured by R3/ICICI
Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.?
...OPP
ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim
compensation, if so, what amount and from
whom? ... OPP
iii. Relief.
9. Smt. Neelam examined as PW-1 has inter-alia deposed
about (i) motor vehicle accident resulting in death of Rinku
Malik, Master Arjun & Jagbir Rana AND bodily injury to Ms.
Neelam after Jagbir driving at very high speed could not control
the car which plunged into a gorge near Baghpat, Mussoorie,
Uttrakhand on 16.10.2014 at 1:30 pm; (ii) injuries including
fracture dislocation of right shoulder joint; fracture of both bone
of right leg; Side C lacerated wound on lateral aspect of medial
of right leg; (iii) treatment at Community Health Centre,
Mussoorie, Dehradun, Uttrakhand & Synergy Institute of
Medical Science, Dehradun, Uttrakhand followed by treatment
Indraprastha Apollo Hospital where she underwent operation for
insertion of rod in her right leg in course of treatment from
17.10.2014 to 26.10.2014; (iv) written complaint lodged at PS
Mussoorie on 02.12.2014; (v) expenses incurred on medicine,
treatment, conveyance, attendant, special diet and expenses likely
to be incurred upon future treatment; (vi) Rinku Malik, aged 33
years, used to earn monthly salary Rs.90,000/- by working as
Manager in Jubliant Food Work Pvt. Ltd. and contributed his
MACT No.710/2016 Neelam Vs. Rohtash Rana & Ors. Page No. 4 of 23
entire income towards household expenses; (vii) Master Arjun,
aged 06 months also died in accident leaving behind his mother
(deponent) as sole legal-heir; (viii) general and special damages
suffered on account of untimely death of her husband and minor
son in motor vehicle accident AND (ix) pecuniary & non
pecuniary damages consequent to bodily injuries suffered in
road accident. She has relied upon following documents:
i. Discharge Summary & Treatment Record of Synergy
Institute of Medical Sciences & Indraprashtha Apollo
Hospital - Ex.PW-1/1;
ii. Medical Bills - Ex.PW-1/2 (Colly. 56 page);
iii. Original estimate for future treatment - Ex.PW-1/3;
iv. Certified copy of Final Report under RTI Act - Ex.PW-1/4
(Colly. 09 pages);
v. Copy of Election ID Card of deponent - Ex.PW-1/5;
vi. Copy of Ration Card verifying members/ dependants -
Ex.PW-1/6 (Colly.);
vii. Copy of Matriculation Certificate of deponent -
Ex.PW-1/7;
viii. Copy of Sr. Secondary Certificate Examination -
Ex.PW-1/8;
ix. Copy of Marksheet of Bachelor of Art, Maharishi
Dayanand University, Rohtak - Ex.PW-1/9;
x. Copy of Diploma in Education, Maharishi Dayanand
University, Rohtak - Ex.PW-1/10;
xi. Copy of Marksheet of 2nd Year of Bachelor of Art,
Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak - Ex.PW-1/11;
MACT No.710/2016 Neelam Vs. Rohtash Rana & Ors. Page No. 5 of 23
xii. Copy of Degree of Bachelor of Art, Maharishi Dayanand
University, Rohtak - Ex.PW-1/12;
xiii. Copy of Aadhar Card of deponent - Ex.PW-1/13;
xiv. Copy of Birth Certificate of Arjun -Ex.PW-1/14;
xv. Copy of Aadhar Card of Tashvi - Ex.PW-1/15 (OSR);
xvi. Copy of Birth Certificate of Tashvi - Ex.PW-1/16;
xvii. Copy of Election I Card of Rinku Malik - Ex.PW-1/17;
xviii. Copy of Matriculation Certificate of Rinku Malik -
Ex.PW-1/18;
xix. Copy of Sr. Secondary Certificate of Rinku Malik -
Ex.PW-1/19;
xx. Copy of Marksheet of Part-III of B.A. of Rinku Malik -
Ex.PW-1/20;
xxi. Copy of B.A. Degree of Rinku Malik - Ex.PW-1/21;
xxii. Copy of Passport of Rinku Malik - Ex.PW-1/22;
xxiii. Copy of Aadhar Card of Sh. Krishan - Ex.PW-1/23;
xxiv. Copy of Aadhar Card of Krishna Devi - Ex.PW-1/24.
10. Sh. Siddharth Aggarwal, Sr. Executive, HR Jubliant Food
Work Pvt. Ltd. being summoned witness examined as PW-2 has
produced (i) Authority Letter - Ex.PW-2/1; (ii) Copy of ID Card
of deponent - Ex.PW-2/2; (iii) Experience Letter dated
11.09.2017 issued by the employer - Ex.PW-2/3; (iv) Attested
copy of Appointment Letter 01.04.2013 - Ex.PW-2/4; (v)
Attested copy of Salary Slip of July 2014 - Ex.PW-2/5 and (vi)
Certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act -
ExPW-2/6.
MACT No.710/2016 Neelam Vs. Rohtash Rana & Ors. Page No. 6 of 23
11. Cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-2 by Ld counsel for
insurance company has been recorded and petitioner's evidence
was closed on 12.09.2017.
12. No witness has been examined by owner and insurer.
Discussion and Conclusion
13. Advocate Sh. Kartik Gadi for Ms. Sonika has strenuously
urged that Rinku Malik was driving the car which plunged into a
deep gorge on Ghanolti Marg near Baghpat, Mussoorie,
Uttrakhand by adverting to - (i) cross-examination of R5W1 Ajay
Singh (examined in cross-case bearing MACT No.984/2016)
who has admitted that Rinku Malik was Area Manager working
in Jubliant Food Work Pvt. Ltd. and also admitted to have taken
consent to his father before lending the car to his friend; (ii)
testimony of PW-4 Bharat Bhushan Sunaar (examined in cross-
case bearing MACT No.984/2016) who has deposed having seen
Rinku Malik (since deceased) driving the car while arriving at
and leaving the Guest House AND (iii) Panchnama read with
Postmortem Report of Rinku Malik recording injury on his chest
which could be caused by some object like 'steering wheel'. It is,
therefore, urged that such injury could be caused to the person
sitting behind the steering wheel which corroborates his
contention that the car indeed was being driven by deceased
Rinku Malik at the time of accident.
14. Advocate Sh. Palvinder Singh for Ms. Neelam, per contra,
would contend that Jagbir Rana was driving the car at the time of
accident by adverting to page no. 6 & 7 of Panchnama of Rinku
Malik AND page no. 8 & 9 of Panchnama of Jagbir Rana which
read as under:
MACT No.710/2016 Neelam Vs. Rohtash Rana & Ors. Page No. 7 of 23
"श्रीमान जी जाँच से पाया गया कि कार नम्बर
HR-26BG-1031 चालक जगबीर S/o रोहतास से
तेज गति व लापरवाही के कारण खाई में गिर गई जिसमें
रींकु मलिक व उनके पुत्र की मृत्यु हो गयी थी, चूँकि
चालक की भी मृत्यु मौके पर हो गयी थी, अत: संलग्न
पंचनामा मे किसी अन्य प्रकार की कारवाई की
आवश्यकता नही है।"
15. Next, he has alluded to cross-examination of R5W1 Sh.
Ajay Singh who has specifically stated that driving licence of
Jagbir Rana was given by his wife at her residence read with
order dated 20.10.2022 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission-V, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi observing that
driving licence of Jagbir Rana along with documents had been
filed with insurance company for settling the Claim for 'Own
Damage'.
16. Finally, Ld. counsel for Ms. Neelam has adverted to
Panchanama/Postmortem Report of Jagbir Rana recording
injuries on the extreme right side of the head, right hand, left
knee and injuries on the backbone and back head which could be
caused to the person driving the vehicle.
17. I have considered their submissions and carefully perused
pleadings and evidence adduced in the 'First Set of Applications'
filed on 17.12.2014 and 'Cross-Applications' filed on
22.09.2015.
18. It is apt to note at the outset that cross-applications have
been filed by Ms. Sonika after she was served notice of
MACT No.710/2016 Neelam Vs. Rohtash Rana & Ors. Page No. 8 of 23
applications seeking compensation for death of Rinku @ Rinku
Malik, Master Arjun and bodily injury to Ms. Neelam.
19. Following extract of cross-examination of PW-1 Ms.
Sonika in MACT No.984/2016 being relevant is reproduced
below for reference:
"I have filed my petition after I received the
summons in the cross case filed by petitioner
Neelam as in the said cross petition, my
deceased husband was mentioned as Driver
of the vehicle whereas the said vehicle was
being driven by Rinku."
20. Similarly, it is also pertinent to note that 'Final Report'
dated 22.12.2014 was prepared on the basis of investigation and
Postmortem Report No.17/14 & 18/14 of Jagbir Rana & Rinku
Malik stating that accident was caused as Jagbir Rana driving at
high speed could not control the car which plunged into the gorge
followed by complaint dated 15.05.2015 (Ex.PW-1/8) of Ms.
Sonika alleging that accident was caused due to rash and
negligent driving of Rinku lodged with Senior Superintendent of
Police after 07 months of the accident.
21. Moreover, although Sh. Ajay Singh (R5W1) having
identified Rinku Malik in photographs Mark-P/DX1 &
Mark-P/DX2 has deposed that (i) Rinku Malik was working as
Area Manager in Jubliant Food Work Pvt. Ltd. AND (ii) consent
of his father was taken before handing over the car, however, he
has also deposed about copy of driving licence of Jagbir Rana
received from his wife at her residence which was submitted
along with documents for settling the Claim for 'Own Damage'.
MACT No.710/2016 Neelam Vs. Rohtash Rana & Ors. Page No. 9 of 23
22. Hence, handing over Maruti Swift Car either to Rinku
Malik or Jagbir Rana in any case is not significant as PW-3 Sh.
Mohinder Singh & PW-4 Sh. Bharat Bhushan Sunaar (examined
in cross-case bearing MACT No.984/2016) have fairly conceded
that they were not present at the place of accident and could not
confirm as to who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident
on 16.10.2014. It could not therefore be established on the basis
of evidence adduced on record that Rinku Malik was driving the
car at the time of accident.
23. Finally, Postmortem Report No.17/14 of Jagbir Rana
would reveal - (i) Laceration over Right Side Forehead above
Right Eye; (ii) Laceration behind Right Ear AND (iii) Abrasion
over Right Forearm, in addition, to abrasions over (iv) Left Side
Forehead; (v) Left Leg Medial Aspect below Left Knee and (vi)
Left Side Back below Left Shoulder as opposed to Postmortem
Report No.18/14 of Rinku Malik recording - (i) Laceration over
Right Parieto-Temporal Scalp; (ii) Laceration over Left Parieto-
Temporal Scalp AND (iii) Fracture of Left Humerous, Left
Elbow with Multiple Abrasion over Left Hand and injury over
Left Chest below Left Shoulder, in addition, to abrasions over
(iv) Nose & (v) Right Thigh.
24. It is, therefore, evident from aforesaid postmortem reports
that Rinku Malik suffered more injuries on the left side of body
in comparison to Jagbir Rana who suffered more injuries on the
right side of body which is in consonance with 'Final Report'
prepared on the basis of investigation read with Panchnama and
postmortem reports.
MACT No.710/2016 Neelam Vs. Rohtash Rana & Ors. Page No. 10 of 23
25. FINDING: Issue No.1 in the 'First Set of Applications' and
'Cross-Applications' in the absence of evidence to establish that
Rinku Malik was indeed driving the car at the time of accident is
therefore decided by holding that Jagbir Rana was driving Maruti
Swift Car No.HR-26BG-1031 which plunged into a deep gorge
on Ghanolti Marg near Baghpat, Mussoorie, Uttrakhand resulting
in death of Rinku Malik, Master Arjun & Jagbir Rana AND
bodily injury to Ms. Neelam and Ms. Sonika.
26. Issue No.2
Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim
compensation, if so, what amount and from
whom? ... OPP
27. Injured Ms. Neelam having suffered bodily injury in motor
vehicle accident was shifted to Synergy Institute of Medical
Science, Dehradun, Uttrakhand where she was diagnosed with (i)
Dislocation of Right Shoulder Joint; (ii) Fracture of Both Bone
Right Leg AND (iii) Lacerated Wound over Lateral Aspect of
Medial of Right Leg. She, thereafter, got treated for fracture &
injuries at Indraprashta Hospital, Delhi and underwent operation
for insertion of rod in her right leg in course of treatment from
17.10.2014 to 26.10.2014.
28. Quantum of compensation is required to be assessed
separately under pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads.
29. At the outset, it has to be borne in mind that compensation
is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be
niggardly and Courts & Tribunals have a duty to weigh the
various factors and quantify the amount of compensation which
should be just. What would be "just" compensation is a vexed
MACT No.710/2016 Neelam Vs. Rohtash Rana & Ors. Page No. 11 of 23
question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for
measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure of
damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical
calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and
circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any,
as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Helen C. Rebello
Vs. Maharasthra SRTC, 1999 (1) SCC 90.
30. Following para of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in R.D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. &
Ors. (1995) 1 SCC 551 being relevant is extracted herein below:
"9. Broadly speaking while fixing an amount
of compensation payable to a victim of an
accident, the damages have to be assessed
separately as pecuniary damages and special
damages. Pecuniary damages are those
which the victim has actually incurred and
which are capable of being calculated in
terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary
damages are those which are incapable of
being assessed by arithmetical calculations.
In order to appreciate two concepts
pecuniary damages may include expenses
incurred by the claimant: (i) medical
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,
MACT No.710/2016 Neelam Vs. Rohtash Rana & Ors. Page No. 12 of 23
discomfort, disappointment, frustration and
mental stress in life."
31. Heads of compensation under pecuniary and non-
pecuniary damages have been further explained by Hon'ble Apex
Court in para 6 of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) 1
SCC 343 which reads as under:
"6. The heads under which compensation is
awarded in personal injury cases are the
following :
Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment,
hospitalization, medicines, transportation,
nourishing food, and miscellaneous
expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which
the injured would have made had he not
been injured, comprising :
(a) Loss of earning during the period of
treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of
permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
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),
MACT No.710/2016 Neelam Vs. Rohtash Rana & Ors. Page No. 13 of 23
(v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings
on account of permanent disability, future
medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or
loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of
expectation of life.
NATURE AND EXTENT OF INJURIES
32. Discharge Summary of Ms. Neelam prepared at Synergy
Institute of Medical Science, Dehradun, Uttrakhand and
Indraprashta Hospital, Delhi would reveal - (i) Compound Grade
II Fracture Both Bone Right Leg; (ii) Fracture Right Pubic Rami;
(iii) Polytrauma with Fracture Dislocation Right Side; (iv) S.I.
Joint Minimal Displaced AND (v) Soft Tissue Injury Left Leg
Right Hemothorax.
33. No other document has been filed on record or relied in
evidence to show any other injury.
MEDICINES AND TREATMENT
34. PW-1 Ms. Neelam in para 3 of affidavit Ex.PW-1/A has
deposed to have spent Rs.5,00,000/- on treatment.
35. Aggregate sum of Rs.1,14,664/- (Rupees One Lakh
Fourteen Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Four only) against
Medical Bills - Ex.PW-1/2 after adjusting payment by Raksha
TPA is awarded to injured towards pecuniary loss under the head
- Medicines & Treatment.
CONVEYANCE AND SPECIAL DIET
36. PW-1 Ms. Neelam in para 3 of affidavit Ex.PW-1/A has
deposed to have spent Rs.50,000/- on conveyance and
Rs.40,000/- on special Diet. However, no bill/document has been
adduced in evidence verifying expenses incurred on Conveyance
& Special Diet.
MACT No.710/2016 Neelam Vs. Rohtash Rana & Ors. Page No. 14 of 23
37. It is assumed that injured Ms. Neelam having suffered (i)
Dislocation of Right Shoulder Joint; (ii) Compound Grade II
Fracture of Both Bone Right Leg AND (iii) Lacerated Wound
over Lateral Aspect of Medial of Right Leg must have used
private vehicle/hired taxi for post-operative treatment till
19.10.2016. A sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand
only) is therefore awarded towards conveyance. Similarly,
injured might have also needed special diet for complete
recovery from fracture injuries suffered in road accident. Another
sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) is
therefore awarded towards special diet.
ATTENDANT CHARGES
38. It is assumed that Ms. Neelam having suffered (i)
Dislocation of Right Shoulder Joint; (ii) Compound Grade II
Fracture of Both Bone Right Leg AND (iii) Lacerated Wound
over Lateral Aspect of Medial of Right Leg might have needed
an attendant to assist her for around 05 months even if such
gratuitous service was rendered by some or the other of her
family/relatives. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Delhi Transport
Corporation and Anr. Vs. Kumari Lalita 1982 SCC Online Delhi
123 has held that the victim cannot be deprived of compensation
towards gratuitous service rendered by some of her family
member. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case
and in view of material on record, he is awarded a sum of
Rs.10,000/- x 5 = Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only)
towards attendant charges.
LOSS OF INCOME
MACT No.710/2016 Neelam Vs. Rohtash Rana & Ors. Page No. 15 of 23
39. Monthly income of injured (Homemaker) in the absence of
cogent evidence is taken as per minimum wage of 'Skilled
Worker' @ Rs.10,478/- applicable in Delhi w.e.f. 01.10.2014.
40. It is assumed that Ms. Neelam having suffered (i)
Dislocation of Right Shoulder Joint; (ii) Compound Grade II
Fracture of Both Bone Right Leg AND (iii) Lacerated Wound
over Lateral Aspect of Medial of Right Leg might have needed
around 05 months to recover from bodily injuries. She is,
therefore, awarded Rs.10,478/- x 5 = Rs.52,390/- (Rupees Fifty
Two Thousand Three Hundred & Ninety only) under the head -
loss of income in course of treatment and recovery from fracture
injury.
PAIN AND SUFFERING
41. Following factors are to be taken into account for assessing
compensation under the head - Pain and Suffering:
i. Nature of injury
ii. Parts of body where injuries occurred
iii. Surgeries, if any
iv. Confinement in hospital
v. Duration of the treatment
42. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in para 9 of Arvind
Kumar Mishra Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (2010)
10 SCC 254 has observed that whole idea in case of assessment
of all damages for personal injury is to put the claimant in the
same position as he was insofar as money can. Perfect
compensation is hardly possible but one has to keep in mind that
the victim has done no wrong; he has suffered at the hands of
MACT No.710/2016 Neelam Vs. Rohtash Rana & Ors. Page No. 16 of 23
wrongdoer and Court must take care to give him full and fair
compensation for that he had suffered.
43. Injured Ms. Neelam having suffered bodily injury in motor
vehicle accident was shifted to Synergy Institute of Medical
Science, Dehradun, Uttrakhand where she was diagnosed with (i)
Dislocation of Right Shoulder Joint; (ii) Fracture of Both Bone
Right Leg AND (iii) Lacerated Wound over Lateral Aspect of
Medial of Right Leg. She, thereafter, got treated for fracture &
injuries at Indraprashta Hospital, Delhi and underwent operation
for insertion of rod in her right leg in course of treatment from
17.10.2014 to 26.10.2014. Injured Neelam is, therefore, awarded
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) towards Pain &
Suffering.
LOSS OF AMENITIES, LOSS OF EXPECTATION OF LIFE,
LOSS OF FUTURE EARNING/PROSPECTS AND FUTURE
MEDICAL EXPENSES
44. Compensation for (i) loss of future earning/prospects AND
(ii) non pecuniary damages including loss of amenities and loss
of expectation of life is not required to be assessed in the absence
of serious injury resulting in permanent physical disability.
45. Break-up of compensation awarded under pecuniary and
non-pecuniary heads is mentioned below in tabulated form:
S. No. HEADS AMOUNT (in
Rupees)
1. Medicines & Treatment Rs.1,14,664/-
2. Conveyance Rs.20,000/-
3. Special Diet Rs.35,000/-
4. Attendant Charges Rs.50,000/-
MACT No.710/2016 Neelam Vs. Rohtash Rana & Ors. Page No. 17 of 23
5. Loss of Income Rs.52,390/-
6. Pain & Suffering Rs.50,000/-
TOTAL Rs.3,22,054/-
rounded off to
Rs.3,22,100/-
INTEREST
46. There is nothing on record to justify withholding interest
on the award amount. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the present case, it will be just and proper to
grant interest @ 7.5% per annum on the award amount in terms
of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mannat Johar & Anr. (2019) 15 SCC 260.
Petitioner Ms. Neelam is therefore awarded interest @ 7.5% per
annum upon award amount Rs.3,22,100/- (Rupees Three Lakhs
Twenty Two Thousand & One Hundred only) from the date of
filing of petition on 17.12.2014 till notice of deposit under Order
XXI Rule 1 CPC to petitioner/counsel.
LIABILITY
47. Since Jagbir Rana (driver) being principal tortfeasor
driving Maruti Swift Car bearing No.HR-26BG-1031 at high
speed could not control the car which plunged into a gorge near
Baghpat, Mussoorie, Uttrakhand leading to bodily injury suffered
by Ms. Neelam so ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.
being statutorily liable under Section 149(1) of M.V. Act to
compensate victim/ passengers of the car under 'Private Vehicle
Package Policy' shall pay award amount with interest to
petitioner in the absence of any statutory defence under section
149(2) of M.V. Act.
MACT No.710/2016 Neelam Vs. Rohtash Rana & Ors. Page No. 18 of 23
48. FINDING : Issue No.2 is decided accordingly by holding
that ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. shall pay the
award amount with interest to petitioner.
RELIEF
49. In view of foregoing discussion and observations and
having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, award
for a sum of Rs.3,22,100/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty Two
Thousand & One Hundred only) with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from
the date of filing of petition on 17.12.2014 till notice of deposit
under Order XXI Rule 1 CPC.
50. Award amount with interest shall be paid to petitioner by
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd.
51. FORM-IVB
SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT
IN INJURY CASE TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident : 16.10.2014
2. Name of the injured : Ms. Neelam
3. Age of the injured : 27 years (at the time of
accident)
4. Occupation of the injured : Homemaker
5. Income of the injured : Rs.10,478/- (minimum wage of
'Skilled Worker' applicable in
Delhi w.e.f. 01.10.2014)
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken : Synergy Institute of Medical
by the injured Science, Dehradun, Uttrakhand
& Indraprashta Hospital, Delhi
MACT No.710/2016 Neelam Vs. Rohtash Rana & Ors. Page No. 19 of 23
8. Period of hospitalization : 17.10.2014 to 26.10.2014
9. Whether any permanent : No
disability? If yes, give details.
10. Computation of Compensation
S. No. Heads Awarded by the
Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs.1,14,664/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs.20,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs.35,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs.50,000/-
(v) Cost of artificial limb -
(vi) Loss of earning capacity -
(vii) Loss of income Rs.52,390/-
(viii) Any other loss which may require -
any special treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and -
physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life -
(iv) Disfiguration -
(v) Loss of marriage prospects -
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, -
hardship, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and unhappiness in
future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
MACT No.710/2016 Neelam Vs. Rohtash Rana & Ors. Page No. 20 of 23
(i) Percentage of disability assessed -
and nature of disability as
permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities of loss of -
expectation of life span on account
of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning -
capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future Income - (Income x -
% Earning Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.3,22,054/-
rounded off to
Rs.3,22,100/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED
16. Interest amount up to the date of @ 7.5% p.a. from
award the date of filing
of petition on
17.12.2014 till
notice of deposit
under Order XXI
Rule 1 CPC
17. Total amount including interest Rs.3,22,100/- +
interest @ 7.5%
p.a. from the date
of filing of the
petition i.e.
17.12.2014 till
notice of deposit
under Order XXI
Rule 1 CPC
18. Award amont released As per table given
below
19. Award amount kept in FDRs As per table given
below
20. Mode of disbursement of the By credit in the
award amount to the claimant(s). SB Account of the
injured
MACT No.710/2016 Neelam Vs. Rohtash Rana & Ors. Page No. 21 of 23
21 Next Date for compliance of the 18.11.2025
Award.
52. The award amount shall be deposited/transferred by
respondent ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. in
Account No.42709452600 of MACT, South West, Dwarka
Courts, New Delhi at State Bank of India, District Court
Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi (IFSC Code
SBIN0011566 and MICR Code 110002483) through
RTGS/NEFT/IMPS within 30 days of the award as per section
168(3) of M.V. Act under intimation to the Nazir of this court
with proof of notice to the claimant/counsel.
53. Statement of petitioner regarding her financial status,
needs and liabilities have been recorded. In view of her statement
and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present
case, the award amount shall be disbursed in following manner:
S. Name Statu Amount of Release Amount Amount
no s Award of FDR
.
1. Smt. Self Rs.3,22,100/- Rs.3,22,100/- with Nil proportionate Neelam interest be released in MACT Claims SB Account Total Rs.3,22,100/- Rs.3,22,100/-
54. Petitioner has mentioned Savings Bank Account No.110046386164 in the name of Neelam with Canara Bank, Main Road, VPO Bijwasan, Delhi (IFSC Code:
CNRB0019012).
MACT No.710/2016 Neelam Vs. Rohtash Rana & Ors. Page No. 22 of 23
55. Branch Manager, SBI, District Courts Complex, Dwarka, Sector-10, New Delhi is directed to transfer Rs.3,22,100/- with proportionate interest in MACT SB Account of Ms. Neelam.
56. Respondent ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd. shall inform claimants/counsel regarding award amount being deposited in MACT Account through registered post.
57. Copy of Award be sent to Manager, SBI, District Courts Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi AND Manager, Canara Bank, Main Road, VPO Bijwasan, Delhi (IFSC Code:
CNRB0019012) for information/ compliance.
58. Dasti copy of Award be given to Ld. Counsel for claimant/injured and insurance company.
59. Ahlmad is directed to prepare separate miscellaneous file to be listed on 18.11.2025 for filing compliance report.
60. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed
TARUN by TARUN
Announced in the open Court YOGESH
YOGESH Date: 2025.10.06
on 26.09.2025 17:19:41 +0530
(Tarun Yogesh)
PO, MACT-01, Dwarka Courts,
New Delhi
MACT No.710/2016 Neelam Vs. Rohtash Rana & Ors. Page No. 23 of 23