Delhi District Court
Sunil Kumar vs Rinku Bhati on 15 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHILASH MALHOTRA
PRESIDING OFFICER: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-02 ,PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:
SUNIL KUMAR VS. RINKU BHATI & ORS
DAR 550/2019
Sh. Sunil Kumar
S/o Sh. Bilas Mahto
R/o 3 Dalmia House,
Sikandra Road,
New Delhi
...Injured/claimant
Versus
1. Sh Rinku Bhati
S/o Sh. Jai Singh
R/o 522, Sector -16, Faridabad, Haryana
....Driver/Respondent no. 1
2. Sh Kamlesh Tiwari
S/o Sh. Achaivar Tiwari
R/o C-88, Maya Vihar Nangal Ray
Maya Puri, Delhi
....Owner/Respondent no.2
3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited
Off. At :GE Block No.4, 7th Floor, DLF Towers,
15 Shivaji Marg, New Delhi -110015
....Insurance Company/Respondent no. 3
Date of accident 10.05.2019
Date of filing of DAR 28.08.2019
Date of framing of issues 11.01.2021
D 550 228/2019 Page. 1 of 32
Sunil Kumar Vs Rinku Bhati & Ors
Date of concluding arguments 10.11.2025
Date of decision 15.11.2025
AWARD/JUDGMENT
Table of Contents
BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE CLAIMANT(s).................................................3
FRAMING OF ISSUES.......................................................................................4 EVIDENCE LED BY THE PARTIES.................................................................5 ARGUMENTS OF COUNSELS OF THE PARTIES..........................................6 ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO.........................................7 Issue No.1: Whether claimant sustained injuries in the accident which occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the respondent driver?....................7 The evidence on record qua negligence:..............................................................7 Presumption qua complicity upon filing chargesheet:.........................................8 Adverse inference qua driver:.............................................................................. 9 Preponderance of probabilities:..........................................................................10 Nature of Injury:................................................................................................. 11 Finding:...............................................................................................................11 Issue No.2: Whether claimant is entitled to compensation, and to what amount? ............................................................................................................................ 12 Principles qua assessment of compensation:......................................................12 Expenditure on Treatment (Pecuniary):.............................................................14 Expenditure on Conveyance & Special Diet (Pecuniary):.................................15 Expenditure on Attendant (Pecuniary):..............................................................15 Cost of Artificial Limb.......................................................................................16 Loss of Earnings during the period of treatment (Pecuniary):...........................16 Compensation for Mental & Physical shock, Pain & Suffering and Loss of amenities (Non-Pecuniary):................................................................................17 Loss of Marriage Prospects (Non-Pecuniary):...................................................18 Disfiguration (Non-Pecuniary):..........................................................................18 Loss of earnings, inconvenience, hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress and unhappiness in future life etc. (Non-Pecuniary):...............................18 Issue No.3: Relief............................................................................................... 19 Amount of Award:.............................................................................................. 19 Rate of Interest:..................................................................................................19 LIABILITY........................................................................................................21 DEPOSIT OF AWARD & RELEASE/APPORTIONMENT.............................25 Deposit of Award:...............................................................................................25 D 550 228/2019 Page. 2 of 32 Sunil Kumar Vs Rinku Bhati & Ors SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES............................................................................................................... 27 COMPLIANCE QUA PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME................................30 I. BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE CLAIMANT(s)
1. The facts as asseverated by the claimant are hereby succinctly recapitulated: A road accident occurred on 10.05.2019 at about 17:00 Hours in front of Jain Chawal, P Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi which resulted in registration of FIR No. 42/2019 U/s 279/338 IPC at PS Connaught Place. The transgressing or offending vehicle involved in this case was a crane bearing registration No. DL 1LY 0997, which at the relevant time of accident was being driven by respondent no.1 (R-1) Sh. Rinku Bhati, was owned by respondent no. 2 (R-2) Ms. Kamlesh Tiwari and was insured by respondent no. 3 (R-3) Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company. The repercussion was devastating for the claimant, for he sustained grievous injuries.
2. The injured was provided medical treatment. Injured suffered a fracture and the nature of injuries was grievous.
3. During investigation, site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared, medical documents were collected and offending vehicle was seized. The driver Rinku Bhati was arrested and thereafter released on bail. On completion of investigation, chargesheet under sections 279/338 IPC was filed qua the driver.
D 550 228/2019 Page. 3 of 32
Sunil Kumar Vs Rinku Bhati & Ors
II. FRAMING OF ISSUES
4. Vide order dated 11.01.2021, following issues were framed by this Tribunal:-
"1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident which occurred on 10.05.2019 at around 17:00 hrs in front of Jain Chawal, P- Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. DL 1LY- 0997 driven by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3?OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief."
5. 15.12.2022 was a watershed moment as far as recording of evidence is concerned, as on that date, judgment titled Gohar Mohammed v Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. (2023) 4 SCC 381 was pronounced, which mandated inter alia that the Claims Tribunal was duty bound to record the evidence through a Local Commissioner. Ergo, vide order dated 13.02.2023, a Local Commissioner was appointed for recording of evidence, report whereof was submitted on 21.05.2024.
D 550 228/2019 Page. 4 of 32
Sunil Kumar Vs Rinku Bhati & Ors
III. EVIDENCE LED BY THE PARTIES
6. In the proceedings conducted before the Tribunal, 02 witnesses were examined, succinct testimonies whereof are as follows:
7. PW1 Claimant Sh Sunil Kumar : He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A. He relied upon certain documents i.e. Copy of his Aadhar Card (Ex.PW1/1 (Colly); copy of driving license exhibited as Mark 'A'; Copy of MLC issued by LHMC hospital as Ex. PW 1/2; The discharge summary as Ex. PW 1/3 (Colly); The copy of OPD cards and medical records are ex. PW 1/4 (Colly); Copy of second discharge note Ex. PW 1/5 (Neither available with the petitioner nor is present in the judicial record); Copy of matriculation certificate Ex. PW 1/6; Copies of medical bills are Ex. PW 1/7 (Colly); DAR is Ex. PW 1/8 (Colly).
8. R3W1 Sh. Ashit Gupta, Manager (Legal) Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. : He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. R3W1/A. He relied upon certain documents i.e. Copy of Charge Sheet Ex. R3W1/1; Copy of Insurance Policy along with terms and conditions is Ex. R3W1/2; Copy of notices sent under Order 12 Rule 8 sent to the owner and driver of vehicle bearing no. DL 1LY 0997 as Ex. R3W1/3 & Ex. R3W1/4. He was cross examined by Ld Counsel for the claimant.
D 550 228/2019 Page. 5 of 32 Sunil Kumar Vs Rinku Bhati & Ors
9. None had appeared on behalf of Respondent nos. 1 & 2 before this Tribunal and their defence was struck off vide order dated 15.01.2020
10. Financial statement of the claimant was recorded on 18.11.2024, written submissions were filed by the parties and final arguments were heard.
IV. ARGUMENTS OF COUNSELS OF THE PARTIES
11. Ld Counsel for the claimant contended that the accident occurred due to the wanton negligence of the driver of the crane bearing registration no. DL 1LY 0997. It is submitted by Ld Counsel for the claimant that the offending vehicle was being driven in rash manner and hit the motor cycle bearing registration number DL 4SCM 3255 driven by the injured, thereby causing grievous injury as fracture in the ankle of the injured.
12. It is argued that the victim was initially admitted in Lady Harding Medical college. Thereafter the victim was admitted in Metro Hospital & cancer institute, Preet Vihar, Delhi from 14.06.2019 to 17.06.2019 where he underwent a surgery. It is submitted that due to injury the injured was not able to pursue his job for a period of around 06 months.
13. The respondent no 1 driver Mr. Rinku and respondent no. 2 owner Ms. Kamlesh did not appear before the Tribunal and there defense was struck off vide order dated 15.01.2020.
D 550 228/2019 Page. 6 of 32 Sunil Kumar Vs Rinku Bhati & Ors
14. Ld Counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company did not dispute the fact of Insurance of the offending vehicle. It is submitted that as per the chargesheet the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding any driving license and the owner committed the breach of the terms of the policy and therefore the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.
V. ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO
(a) Issue No.1: Whether claimant sustained injuries in the accident which occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the respondent driver?
i. The evidence on record qua negligence:
15. A plea was taken by the respondent insurance company that the owner of the offending vehicle has intentionally committed the breach of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy inasmuch as the owner allowed an unauthorized person to drive her vehicle, who did not have driving license to drive the vehicle in question. Not having a driving license or driving with an expired driving license does not affect the question of rash or negligent driving. Rash driving may comprise driving a high speed in narrow lane/street, driving wrong side, changing lane without indicator, sudden breaking etc. All these circumstances are D 550 228/2019 Page. 7 of 32 Sunil Kumar Vs Rinku Bhati & Ors independent of holding or not holding a driving license. The only thing which an insurance company may plead is the extent of their liability in case there is a breach of terms of insurance. From the contents of the charge sheet is apparently clear the that he offending vehicle was driven rashly and that finding is sufficient to draw an inference for the purpose of present proceedings.
ii. Presumption qua complicity upon filing chargesheet:
16. To discern the concept of rashness for the purposes of present proceedings before this Tribunal it will be prudent to refer the recent order dated 25.02.2025, passed in Ranjeet & Anr v Abdul Nayem Keb & Anr in SLP(C) 10351/2019 , wherein it was held that "It is settled in law that once a charge sheet has been filed and the driver has been held negligent, no further evidence is required to prove that the bus was being negligently driven by the bus driver. Even if the eyewitnesses are not examined, that will not be fatal to prove the death of the deceased due to negligence of the bus driver."
17. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meera Devi & ors., 2021 LawSuit (Del) 2021 held that:
"......in view of Delhi Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rules, 2008, contents of DAR has to be presumed to be correct and read in evidence without formal proof of the same unless proof to the contrary was produced."
D 550 228/2019 Page. 8 of 32 Sunil Kumar Vs Rinku Bhati & Ors
18. As per DAR, the accident in question took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R-1.
19. In the present case, not only FIR was registered but the chargesheet was also filed qua respondent no 1 driver. Thus, a presumption of negligence exists qua the driver respondent, a presumption which could not be rebutted.
20.Moreover, in evidence PW-1 Sunil Kumar reiterated the fact of causing of accident due to rash driving by the offending vehicle. In his cross examination he confirmed that the offending vehicle hit the motorcycle of victim from front side as it was coming from wrong side. He also placed on record the medical documents. The discharge summary from the hospital shows that he has suffered grievous injuries due to fracture in the right ankle.
21.Insurance Company conducted the cross examination but failed to create any doubt in the testimony in respect of the accident and the fact of occurrence of accident due to rash or negligence driving. The fact of rash driving by the offending vehicle stands proved from the filing of chargesheet as well as from the testimony of PW-1.
iii. Adverse inference qua driver:
22. The driver of the offending vehicle steered clear of the witness box and did not lead any controvertible evidence to D 550 228/2019 Page. 9 of 32 Sunil Kumar Vs Rinku Bhati & Ors negate or refute the allegations of rash and negligent driving. It may further be noted that in Cholamandlam insurance company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh 2009 (3) AD Delhi 310, it was held that if driver of offending vehicle does not enter the witness box, an adverse inference can be drawn against him. In the present case also, since the driver exercised his volition to not enter into the witness box to controvert the claim of petitioner or even to explain circumstances of accident, an adverse inference ought to be drawn against him.
iv. Preponderance of probabilities:
23. It is trite law that in a proceeding before the Claims Tribunal, the claimant does not have to establish negligence on the part of the driver respondent beyond reasonable doubt. The standards of establishing negligence is predicated on preponderance of probabilities. In the present case too, negligence has been established on this principle.
24. In this context, it would be useful to peruse Mathew Alexander v. Mohd. Shafi, (2023) 13 SCC 510 wherein it was observed as thus:
"In this context, we could refer to the judgments of this Court in N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal [N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal, (1980) 3 SCC 457 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 774] , wherein the plea that the criminal case had ended in acquittal and that, therefore, the civil suit must follow suit, was rejected. It was observed that culpable rashness under Section 304-AIPC is more drastic than negligence under D 550 228/2019 Page. 10 of 32 Sunil Kumar Vs Rinku Bhati & Ors the law of torts to create liability. Similarly, in Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC [Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC, (2009) 13 SCC 530 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 189 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1101] ("Bimla Devi"), it was observed that in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal has to determine the amount of fair compensation to be granted in the event an accident has taken place by reason of negligence of a driver of a motor vehicle. A holistic view of the evidence has to be taken into consideration by the Tribunal and strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner need not be established by the claimants. The claimants have to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering the petition seeking compensation on account of death or injury in a road traffic accident. To the same effect is the observation made by this Court in Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz [Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 73 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 13] which has referred to the aforesaid judgment in Bimla Devi [Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC (2009) 13 SCC 530."
v. Nature of Injury:
25. PW-1 Mr Sunil Kumar filed on record his discharge summary issued by the Metro Hospital. The medical record shows that he has suffered fractured on his right ankle and undergone a surgery. From the medical record it is clear the injures suffered by Mr. Sunil Kumar was grievous in nature.
vi. Finding:
D 550 228/2019 Page. 11 of 32
Sunil Kumar Vs Rinku Bhati & Ors
26. In view of foregoing discussion, it stands proved on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities that the aforesaid accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the transgressing/offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1LY-0997 and the said vehicle at that time was driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured by respondent no.3. Hence, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the claimant and against the respondents.
(b) Issue No.2: Whether claimant is entitled to compensation, and to what amount?
i. Principles qua assessment of compensation:
27. Before adverting to the submissions of the counsels in this regard, it would be apposite to refer to the law of the land qua this aspect. In terms of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, the compensation which is to be awarded by this Tribunal is required to be 'just'. The law has been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) 1 SCC 343,
28. In Raj Kumar (supra) the heads under which compensation is to be calculated was expounded as thus :
"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, D 550 228/2019 Page. 12 of 32 Sunil Kumar Vs Rinku Bhati & Ors 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.
D 550 228/2019 Page. 13 of 32 Sunil Kumar Vs Rinku Bhati & Ors
(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."
29. The claimant filed Form XIV of the Scheme for Motor Accident Claims qua the above heads pertaining to pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.
30. Having considered the ratio of the aforementioned judgment, the compensation payable to the claimant is assessed under the heads mentioned in the succeeding paragraphs.
ii. Expenditure on Treatment (Pecuniary):
31. In his affidavit Ex PW1/A, the claimant has tendered on record copy of his medical record as per which the claimant suffered grievous injuries.
32. The claimant has tendered on record his medical bills as Ex PW1/4 (Colly). The final bill dated 17.06.2019 issued by the Metro Hospital is of Rs.71,721/-. The claimant has also placed on record the other invoices showing the expenditure incurred by him on medical treatment. The claimant has D 550 228/2019 Page. 14 of 32 Sunil Kumar Vs Rinku Bhati & Ors quantified the amount on medical expenditure as 98,328/-. It is submitted during the arguments claimant has received reimbursement of medical charges of Rs.70,000/- and only claiming the remaining amount of Rs.28,328/-. The Insurance Company has failed to rebut the bills and the claim of the injured in this regard. Thus, in view of the assertions of the claimant coupled with the medical bills, the expenditure on medical treatment is hereby quantified as Rs 28,328/-.
iii. Expenditure on Conveyance & Special Diet (Pecuniary):
33. Ld Counsel for claimant contended that Rs 30,000/- each were spent on Conveyance and Rs. 25,000/- was spent on Special Diet. Ld Counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company disputed the quantum of the same. In the evidence PW -1 claimant has stated that he remained under treatment for about 05 months. The medical record shows that grievous injures suffered by the victim. Under these circumstances and in view of the assertions of the Ld. Counsel for Insurance Company, considering a reasonable amount, the expenditure on conveyance and Special Diet is hereby quantified as Rs 50,000/-. (Rs 25,000/- each) iv. Expenditure on Attendant (Pecuniary):
34. Ld Counsel for claimant contended that Rs 30,000/- were spent on engaging the services of an Attendant for a period of three months. Ld Counsel for the respondent/Insurance D 550 228/2019 Page. 15 of 32 Sunil Kumar Vs Rinku Bhati & Ors Company disputed the quantum of the same. Under these circumstances and in view of the assertions of the Ld. Counsel for Insurance Company, considering a reasonable amount, the expenditure on Attendant is hereby quantified as Rs 20,000/-.
v. Cost of Artificial Limb No amount is claimed under this head by the petitioner.
vi. Loss of Earnings during the period of treatment (Pecuniary):
35. Ld. Counsel for claimant contended that the claimant did not attend to his duties for a period of 06 months since the date of the accident. However in evidence, the petitioner stated that he was under medical treatment for a period of 05 months. In written submissions the monthly income is taken as 14,468/- being minimum wages.
36. To avoid ambiguity, income of the injured/claimant be assessed based on Minimum Wages of a semi skilled labor which as per order number F. No. 12(142)/02/MW/Vl/Partfile/3636 dated 23.10.2019 issued by the Labor Department GNCTD for category matriculate but not graduate at the relevant time of accident was Rs. 17,924/-. Since the claimant was indisposed for about 05 months, the amount awarded under this head is quantified as Rs. 89,620/- (Rs 17,924/- x5).
37. Thus, the total amount awarded under Pecuniary damages is:
D 550 228/2019 Page. 16 of 32
Sunil Kumar Vs Rinku Bhati & Ors
Sr. No Details Amount
1. Expenditure on Medical 28,328/-
treatment
2. Expenditure on Conveyance & 50,000/-
Special Diet
3. Expenditure on Attendant 20,000/-
4 Cost of limb Nil
5. Loss of earning during the period 89,620/-
treatment i.e. Minimum wages for six months.
(Rs 17,924/- x5)
Total Pecuniary Damage 1,87,948/-
vii. Compensation for Mental & Physical shock, Pain & Suffering
and Loss of amenities (Non-Pecuniary):
33. As stated above, the claimant had suffered grievous injuries.
This Tribunal is conscious of the fact that no amount of money can erase the trauma and grief that the victim has suffered, or the dignity and confidence that was shattered. No amount of money can compensate the agony that the victim has undergone, but it is hoped that some compensation can go a long way in alleviating a bit of the suffering that he has endured. An e a r n e s t effort has to be made to compensate him for the same in a just and reasonable manner. Hence, keeping in view the extent and nature of the injuries D 550 228/2019 Page. 17 of 32 Sunil Kumar Vs Rinku Bhati & Ors suffered by the claimant and duration of the treatment taken by him etc., the following
(i) Rs. 20,000/- for Pain and suffering, and
(ii) Rs. 20,000/- for mental and physical shock undergone
(iii) Rs 10,000/- for Loss of amenities.
Thus, he is hereby awarded total amount of Rs 50,000/- under this head.
viii. Loss of Marriage Prospects (Non-Pecuniary):
34. The petitioner has not claimed any amount under this head and therefore no amount is awarded under this head.
ix. Disfiguration (Non-Pecuniary):
35. There is no proof on record that the injuries caused any disfiguration. Hence, no amount is being awarded to the claimant under this head.
x. Loss of earnings, inconvenience, hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress and unhappiness in future life etc. (Non-Pecuniary):
36. No amount is claimed under this Head.
37. Thus, the total amount awarded under Non-Pecuniary damages is:
Sr. No Details Amount
1. Compensation for Mental & Rs. 20,000/-
Physical shock
2. Pain & Suffering Rs. 20,000/-
3. Loss of amenities Rs. 10,000/-
D 550 228/2019 Page. 18 of 32 Sunil Kumar Vs Rinku Bhati & Ors
4. Loss of Marriage Prospects Not claimed
5. Disfiguration Nil
6. Loss of earnings, Not claimed inconvenience, hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress and unhappiness in future life etc. Total non-pecuniary Rs. 50,000/-
damages
(c) Issue No.3: Relief.
i. Amount of Award:
38. Thus, the total amount of award, after adding Pecuniary damages (Rs 1,87,948/-) and Non Pecuniary damages (Rs 50,000/-) amounts to Rs 2,37,948/-.
39. Thus, the claimant is awarded a sum of Rs 2,37,948/- along with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of claim petition. The rate of interest has been calculated in terms of the succeeding paragraphs.
ii. Rate of Interest:
40. It was contended by Ld Counsel for the respondent insurance company that the amount of interest ought to at @7.5%, in accordance with the general prevalent practice in Courts.
D 550 228/2019 Page. 19 of 32 Sunil Kumar Vs Rinku Bhati & Ors However, Ld Counsel for the claimant sought 9% as the rate of interest.
41. In order to adjudicate these rival claims, recourse can be had to Erudhaya Priya v State Transport Corporation 2020 SCC OnLine SC 601 wherein the aspect of rate of interest was categorically enunciated as thus:
(c) The third and the last aspect is the interest rate claimed as 12% "15.In respect of the aforesaid, the appellant has watered down the interest rate during the course of hearing to 9% in view of the judicial pronouncements including in the Jagdish case (supra). On this aspect, once again, there was no serious dispute raised by the learned counsel for the respondent once the claim was confined to 9% in line with the interest rates applied by this Court"
42. Ergo, the amount of compensation/award amount will be payable by the respondent insurance company with simple interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the claim petition/DAR till actual realization. The date of filing of DAR is 28.08.2019 and the interest has to be granted for around 74 months, therefore the amount of Interest is calculated at @ 9 % p.a. i.e. Rs. 1,33,244/- Thus, the total amount of award is (Rs 2,37,948/- + Rs. 1,33,244/-) Rs. 3,71,192/-.
43. It is also clarified that in case the interest of petitioner was stopped or excluded during the present inquiry proceedings, same is liable to be adjusted from the total interest calculated on the Award amount. Similarly, amount awarded and D 550 228/2019 Page. 20 of 32 Sunil Kumar Vs Rinku Bhati & Ors released as interim Award, if any, during pendency of the case, be deducted from the total compensation.
VI. LIABILITY
44. Insurance has taken a defense that there was breach of policy conditions as the vehicle was driven by a person not having any driving license. It is submitted that the vehicle in question is a commercial vehicle and the owner was duty bound to ensure that it is being driven by a person with valid driving license.
45. To appreciate the legal position in this regard, it would be relevant to rely on some of the precedents. The Hon'ble Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Abhijit Mazumder, 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 4971 held that:
"24. Bearing in mind the aforesaid proposition of the Court, let me revert to the materials on record. The insurance company by adducing the evidence of DW 1 and through the extract of driving licence (Ext. F) could establish the fact the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive such vehicle. However, mere absence of valid and effective driving licence of the driver for driving such vehicle at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards the insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time and such burden of proof lies with the insurer to establish "breach" on the part D 550 228/2019 Page. 21 of 32 Sunil Kumar Vs Rinku Bhati & Ors of the owner of the vehicle. At this juncture, it is to be seen as to whether such burden has been discharged by the insurance company. The owner of the vehicle was aware that the vehicle was meant for carrying hazardous substances like inflammable oil. It was incumbent upon the owner of the vehicle to ensure that all safety protocols has been reasonably taken care of including the fact that the driver was qualified to drive such vehicle carrying hazardous substances. Allowing a driver to drive such vehicle without having proper licence to drive hazardous substance by itself makes the owner of the vehicle guilty of negligence since he failed to take reasonable care for fulfilling the condition of policy. Since there is breach of condition of the policy of insurance, the principle of pay and recovery applies to the facts and circumstances of this case. The learned Tribunal though observed that the proposition in S. Iyyapan case [S. Iyyapan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2013) 7 SCC 62] applies in the factual matrix of the case, but no such order of pay and recovery was passed giving liberty to the insurance company to recover the compensation amount from the owner of the offending vehicle. I find substance in the submissions of Mr Paul, learned advocate for appellant Insurance Company relying on S. Iyyapan casethat liberty to recover the compensation amount from the owner of the offending vehicle shall be given to the insurer in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
46. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (followed in S. Iyyapan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2013) 7 SCC 62) held that:
"110. The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these petitions is as follows:
(ii) An insurer is entitled to raise a defence in a claim petition filed under Section 163-A or Section 166 of the D 550 228/2019 Page. 22 of 32 Sunil Kumar Vs Rinku Bhati & Ors Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, inter alia, in terms of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the said Act.
(iii) The breach of policy condition e.g. disqualification of the driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of Section 149, has to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards the insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time.
(iv) Insurance companies, however, with a view to avoid their liability must not only establish the available defence(s) raised in the said proceedings but must also establish 'breach' on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof wherefor would be on them.
(vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards the insured unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply 'the rule of main purpose' and the concept of 'fundamental breach' to allow defences available to the insurer under Section 149(2) of the Act.
(x) Where on adjudication of the claim under the Act the Tribunal arrives at a conclusion that the insurer has satisfactorily proved its defence in accordance with the provisions of Section 149(2) read with sub-section (7), as interpreted by this Court above, the Tribunal can direct that the insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the insured for the compensation and other amounts which it has been compelled to pay to the third party under the award of the Tribunal. Such determination of claim by the Tribunal will be enforceable and the money found due to the insurer D 550 228/2019 Page. 23 of 32 Sunil Kumar Vs Rinku Bhati & Ors from the insured will be recoverable on a certificate issued by the Tribunal to the Collector in the same manner under Section 174 of the Act as arrears of land revenue. The certificate will be issued for the recovery as arrears of land revenue only if, as required by sub-section (3) of Section 168 of the Act the insured fails to deposit the amount awarded in favour of the insurer within thirty days from the date of announcement of the award by the Tribunal.
(xi) The provisions contained in sub-section (4) with the proviso thereunder and sub-section (5) which are intended to cover specified contingencies mentioned therein to enable the insurer to recover the amount paid under the contract of insurance on behalf of the insured can be taken recourse to by the Tribunal and be extended to claims and defences of the insurer against the insured by relegating them to the remedy before regular court in cases where on given facts and circumstances adjudication of their claims inter se might delay the adjudication of the claims of the victims."
47. The Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ram Kumar & Ors., Civil Revision No. 49 od 2017, dated 28.10.2025 (at Gwalior bench), Neutral Citation No. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27009 held that:
"8. So far as Section 149 (5) is concerned, it is with regard to the extent of liability, and the present case is not covered by the erstwhile provision of section 149(5) of the Act. Proviso to sub- section 4 of Section 149 had given authority to the insurer to recover the compensation from the insured if any compensation amount is paid. However, in the present case, the insurance company has been exonerated from the liability on the ground of violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The insurance policy is a statutory contract entered into between the insurer and the insured for the benefit of the third party. If the insured has violated the conditions of the insurance policy, it is a matter between the insurer and the insured, and the third party cannot be made to suffer by going for execution against a private person instead of the insurer.
D 550 228/2019 Page. 24 of 32 Sunil Kumar Vs Rinku Bhati & Ors Therefore, in considered opinion of this Court, paragraph 102 (x) of the judgment in the case of Swaran Singh (supra) would apply even if the proviso to sub- section 4 and sub-section 5 of section 149 of Act has been omitted, and that has not brought any difference in the application of the principle of pay and recover."
48. From the charge sheet filed in this case it is clear that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having any valid driving license on the date of accident. Penal actions have been taken against the owner and the driver by the police. As per the mandate given in precedents cited above the option of pay and recover is made available to the insurance company.
49. In these circumstances, the insurance is directed to pay the award amount and granted the liberty to recover the same from driver & owner jointly or severally.
VII. DEPOSIT OF AWARD & RELEASE/APPORTIONMENT i. Deposit of Award:
50. In terms of the mandate of order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) the respondent Insurance Company shall deposit the award amount or transfer the same by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS directly to the bank account of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in UCO Bank, Patiala House Courts within 30 days of the award. The respondent(s) held liable to pay compensation by the Claims Tribunal shall give notice of deposit of the compensation amount to D 550 228/2019 Page. 25 of 32 Sunil Kumar Vs Rinku Bhati & Ors the claimant(s) and shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days of the deposit with the interest upto the date of notice of deposit to the claimant(s) with a copy to their counsel.
51. The respondent no.3 being insurer of offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the award amount with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Branch, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in bank account being maintained in the above said bank in name of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal within 30 days from today, failing which it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of delay. In case even after lapse of 90 days from today, respondent no. 3 fails to deposit this compensation with interest, in that event, in light of judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal 2007 ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of respondent no. 3 with a cost of Rs.5,000/-
52. The respondent no. 3 shall inform the petitioner and his counsel that the awarded amount has been deposited so as to facilitate him to collect the same.
53. Release: In the present matter, the entire amount of compensation awarded be released to the claimant in the bank D 550 228/2019 Page. 26 of 32 Sunil Kumar Vs Rinku Bhati & Ors account of the claimant. The Nodal officer of the bank shall ensure disbursement of the award within 3 weeks of receipt thereof by email or otherwise, through electronic mode in the bank account of the petitioner.
54. The disbursement to the claimant is, however, subject to the addition of future interest till deposit proportionately and deduction of proportionate tax on the interest amount or amount of interim award, if any, to/from his share.
55. The petitioner is directed to file the copy of passbook of the savings bank account in terms of order dated 28.08.2019 for disbursement of the claim amount through electronic mode.
VIII. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES
56. Since this is a case pertaining to injury, particulars of Form-
XVI of the Scheme For Motor Accidents Claims Formulated by the Delhi High Court in terms of order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) are as under:
1. Date of accident : 10.05.2019
2. Name of the injured : Sunil Kumar
3. Age of the injured : 20 Years (on date of accident)
4. Occupation of the injured : Delivery boy
5. Income of the injured : As per Minimum Wages
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by : Yes D 550 228/2019 Page. 27 of 32 Sunil Kumar Vs Rinku Bhati & Ors the injured
8. Period of hospitalization : 10.05.2019, 14.06.2019 to 17.06.2019
9. Whether any permanent : No disability?
10. Computation of Compensation Sr.N Heads o.
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment : 28,328/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance : 25,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet : 25,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant : 20,000/-
(v) Loss of earning capacity : --------
(vi) Loss of Income : 89,620/-
12. Non-pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental : 20,000/-
and physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering : 20,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life : 10,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration : NIL
(v) Loss of marriage prospects : Not claimed
(vi) Loss of earning, : Not claimed
inconvenience, hardships,
disappointment,frustration,
mental stress, dejectment
and unhappiness in future
life etc.
13. Disability resulting in
loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability : NIL
assessed and nature of
disability as permanent or
D 550 228/2019 Page. 28 of 32
Sunil Kumar Vs Rinku Bhati & Ors
temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of : NIL
expectation of life span on
account of disability.
(iii) Percentage of loss of : NIL
earning relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income & : NIL
earning capacity
14. Total Compensation 2,37,948/-
15. Interest Awarded : @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of
claim petition till the date of award to be deposited in 30 days and 9% thereafter.
16. Interest amount up to the : Rs 1,33,244/-
date of award
17. Total amount including : 3,71,192/-
interest
18. Award amount released : 100%
19. Award amount kept in the : NIL FDRs/ Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD)
20. Mode of disbursement of : Through Bank the award amount to the petitioner (s)
21. Next date for compliance : 16.12.2025 of the award IX. COMPLIANCE QUA PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME
33. The particulars of Form XVII of the Scheme For Motor Accidents Claims Formulated by the Delhi High Court , in D 550 228/2019 Page. 29 of 32 Sunil Kumar Vs Rinku Bhati & Ors terms of order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) are as hereunder:
1. Date of the accident 10.05.2019
2. Date of filing of Form I- First Not available as the case is Accident Report (FAR) transferred from the other Court.
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the As above victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the As above Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from As above the owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- As above Interim Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and As above Form VIB from the Victim (s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII-Detailed As above Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or Yes. 18 days delay.
deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the 02.11.2020 Designated Officer by the Insurance Company.
11. Whether the Designated Officer of No. the Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or Yes. Due to Covid-19 pandemic.
deficiencies on the part of the D 550 228/2019 Page. 30 of 32 Sunil Kumar Vs Rinku Bhati & Ors Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the 16.01.2021 petitioner(s) of the offer of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the Award 15.11.2025
15. Whether the petitioner(s) were Yes.
directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which petitioner(s) 28.08.2019.
were directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the petitioner (s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s).
17. Date on which the petitioner(s) Not filed. Directions issued.
produced the passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of 3 Dalmia House, Sikandra Road, the petitioner(s) New Delhi, NDMC, New Delhi, G.P Central Delhi-
Delhi-110001.
19. Whether the petitioner(s) savings Not filed. Directions issued.
bank account(s) is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the petitioner(s) were Yes.
D 550 228/2019 Page. 31 of 32 Sunil Kumar Vs Rinku Bhati & Ors examined at the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
34. Further, in terms of the directions given vide order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra), the Ahlmad shall send a certified copy of this award to the concerned Criminal Court and to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority through e- mail. Copy of the award be also sent to the bank concerned. The Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII as per the directions given in the above case.
35. File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary formalities. Separate file be prepared for compliance report and be put up on 16.12.2025.
Digitally signed by ABHILASH Announced in the open court ABHILASH MALHOTRA MALHOTRA Date:
On 15.11.2025 2025.11.15
18:09:16
+0530
(Abhilash Malhotra)
Judge/PO, MACT-02,
New Delhi /15.11.2025
sds..
D 550 228/2019 Page. 32 of 32
Sunil Kumar Vs Rinku Bhati & Ors