Delhi District Court
Satpal vs Rajinder Singh Verma on 1 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SHRI TARUN YOGESH
LD. PO-MACT-01, SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT,
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
MACT No. 378/2021
CNR No. DLSW01-006563-2021
FIR No. 14/2021
PS: Jaffar Pur Kalan
In the matter of :
1) Sh. Satpal
S/o Sh. Chand Ram
R/o VPO Sarangpur,
New Delhi. ... (Petitioner)
Versus
1) Sh. Rajendra Singh Verma
S/o Sh. Sahiram
R/o H. No. 1524,
Ward No. 13, Shiv Dharamshala,
Shiv Nagar, Hisar, Haryana. ...(Driver-cum-Owner)
2) Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd.
At SCO-9, 1st Floor above Central Bank of India,
Sector-10, Panchkula, Haryana-134109.
...(Insurance Company)
... Respondents
Date of Institution : 29.07.2021
Date of Judgment : 01.09.2025
FORM-XVII
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME
TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD
MACT No. 378/2021 Satpal Vs. Rajinder Singh Verma & Anr. Page 1 of 26
1. Date of the accident 22.02.2021
2. Date of filing of Form-I - First Accident Not Known
Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery for Form-II to the Not Known
victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the Not Known
Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Not Known
Owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- Interim Not Known
Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form- Not Known
VIB from the
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - Detailed 29.07.2021
Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or No
deficiency on the part of the Investigating
Officer? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Designated Not Known
Officer by the Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated Officer of the No
Insurance Company submitted his report
within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or Yes
deficiency on the part of the Designated
Officer of the Insurance Company? If so,
whether any action/direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the claimant(s) to the Not Known
offer of the Insurance Company
14. Date of the award 01.09.2025
15. Whether the claimant(s) was/were Yes
directed to open savings bank account(s)
near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which claimant(s) 29.07.2021
was/were directed to open saving bank
MACT No. 378/2021 Satpal Vs. Rajinder Singh Verma & Anr. Page 2 of 26
account(s) near his place or residence and
produce PAN Card and Aadhaar Card and
the direction to the bank not issue any
cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s)
and make an endorsement to this effect on
the passbook
17. Date on which the claimant(s) produce 11.03.2025
the passbook of their savings bank
account near the place of their residence
along with the endorsement, PAN Card
and Aadhar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of the VPO Sarangpur,
cliamant(s) New Delhi
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank Yes
account(s) is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) was/were Yes
examined at the time of passing of the
award to ascertain his/their financial
condition?
AWAR D
Preface
1. Detailed Accident Report (DAR) seeking compensation for
bodily injury suffered in motor vehicle accident has been filed
along with copy of Final Report in FIR No.14/2021, PS Jaffarpur
Kalan, Delhi.
Background
2. Brief facts gleaned from Final Report under section
279/338 IPC would reveal that Satpal driving Motorcycle
No.DL9S-BZ-0541 sustained bodily injury in motor vehicle
accident near Dhansa Toll Tax, Dhansa Village, New Delhi on
22.02.2021 at about 12:30 pm after respondent Rajinder Singh
Verma suddenly moved Maruti Alto K-10 Car No.HR-20AL-
MACT No. 378/2021 Satpal Vs. Rajinder Singh Verma & Anr. Page 3 of 26
9991 to its right resulting in collission and bodily injury to Satpal
who was shifted to RTRM Hospital, Jaffarpur Kalan, Delhi
where MLC No.722/21 was prepared recording - Abrasions over
(i) Left Knee; (ii) Left Index Finger; (iii) Left Hand AND (iv)
Left Parietal Scalp Hematoma which were opined Grievous.
3. FIR No.14/2021 under section 279/337 IPC was registered
at PS Jaffarpur Kalan on 23.02.2021 and site-plan was prepared
on the basis of CCTV Footage of the incident. Respondent
Rajinder Singh Verma (driver-cum-owner) was formally arrested
and released on police bail on 27.02.2021 AND motorcycle
No.DL9S-BZ-0541 & Alto K-10 Car No.HR-20AL-9991
involved in the accident were released on superdari after their
mechanical inspection. Documents including DL, RC and
insurance policy of offending car were verified from concerned
authorities and offence under section 338 IPC was added on the
basis of final opinion of grievous injury. Statement of witnesses
were recorded and IO, thereafter, concluded investigation and
prepared DAR which was filed in Court along with copy of Final
Report under section 279/338 IPC.
Defence
4. Respondent Rajinder Singh Verma (driver-cum-owner) has
disputed accident and/or liability to compensate injured by
contending about - (i) Driving Licence No. HR2019990014946
valid up to 18.12.2025 AND (ii) Policy No.23116114259800000
of Maruti Alto K10 Car No.HR-20AL-9991 insured with
Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. from 30.03.2020 to
29.03.2021.
MACT No. 378/2021 Satpal Vs. Rajinder Singh Verma & Anr. Page 4 of 26
5. Respondent Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd.
on its part has admitted Policy No.2311/61142598/00/000 of
vehicle No.HR-20AL-9991 insured in the name of Rajinder
Singh Verma for the period 30.03.2020 to 29.03.2021 besides
reserving its right to raise statutory defence under section 149(2)
and all defences under section 170 of M.V. Act in case the driver
and owner would fail to contest the case.
Inquiry
6. Following issues were settled on 02.12.2021 and matter
was posted for petitioner evidence.
i. Whether Satpal sustained injuries in a
motor vehicle accident dated 22.02.2021
due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle
i.e. Motorcycle bearing no. DL 9SBZ 0541,
being driven & owned by R-1 Rajinder
Singh Verma and insured by R-2/The
Universal Sompo General Insurance Co.
Ltd.? ... OPP
ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim
compensation, if so, what amount and from
whom? ... OPP
iii. Relief.
7. Injured Satpal examined as PW-1 has inter-alia deposed
about - (i) multiple grievous injuries suffered in motor vehicle
accident near Dhansa Toll Tax, Dhansa Village, New Delhi on
22.02.2021 at about 12:30 pm after respondent Rajinder Singh
Verma suddenly moved Vehicle No. HR-20AL-9991 to its right
in rash and negligent manner without following Traffic Rules &
Regulations; (ii) treatment at RTRM Hospital & Action Medical
MACT No. 378/2021 Satpal Vs. Rajinder Singh Verma & Anr. Page 5 of 26
Institute Balaji where he remained admitted from 22.02.2021 to
03.03.2021; (iii) expenses incurred on medicine, treatment,
conveyance, special diet, attendant charges, physiotherapy etc.;
(iv) monthly income Rs.25,000/- by doing cultivation AND (v)
general and special damages suffered consequent to bodily
injuries suffered in road accident. He has also relied upon
following documents:
i. Copy of Referral Slip of RTRM Hospital - Mark- 'A';
ii. OPD Card of Action Medical Institute Balaji - Ex.PW-1/1
(Colly.);
iii. DAR - Ex.PW-1/2 (Colly);
iv. Copy of Aadhar Card of deponent - Ex.PW-1/3.
8. Cross-examination of injured by Ld. counsel for
respondents has been recorded and petitioner's evidence was
closed on 13.03.2024.
9. No witness has been examined by driver-cum-owner &
insurer and respondents' evidence was closed on 03.07.2024.
Discussion and Conclusion
10. Advocate Sh. R.K. Singh for injured, Advocate Sh.
Harvinder Singh for Rajender Singh Verma (driver-cum-owner)
and Advocate Sh. Mehtab Singh for Universal Sompo General
Insurance Co. Ltd. have addressed their submissions.
11. Advocate Sh. Harvinder Singh for respondent (driver-cum-
owner), in addition, has relied upon judgment dated 20.04.2023
of Ld. MM-09, South West, Dwarka, Delhi acquitting accused
/driver of offence under section 279 IPC on the basis of
testimony of PW-3 Satpal who admitted that driver of the vehicle
MACT No. 378/2021 Satpal Vs. Rajinder Singh Verma & Anr. Page 6 of 26
was not at fault, rather, he met with an accident due to his
headache.
12. I have carefully perused pleadings and evidence adduced
on judicial file. My issue wise finding is recorded below:
13. Issue No.1 needs to be modified for mentioning correct
particulars of offending Maruti Alto K-10 Car No.HR-20AL-
9991 which shall read as under:
14. Issue No.1:
Whether Satpal driving Motorcycle No. DL
9SBZ 0541, sustained bodily injuries in
motor vehicle accident dated 22.02.2021
due to rash and negligent driving of Maruti
Alto K-10 Car No.HR-20AL-9991 by R-1
Rajinder Singh Verma (driver-cum-owner)
which was insured with R-2/The Universal
Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd.?
... OPP
15. Injured Satpal in para 1 of affidavit Ex.PW-1/A has
deposed about multiple grievous injuries suffered in motor
vehicle accident near Dhansa Toll Tax, Dhansa Village, New
Delhi on 22.02.2021 at about 12:30 pm after respondent Rajinder
Singh Verma suddenly moved Vehicle No. HR-20AL-9991 to its
right in rash and negligent manner without following Traffic
Rules & Regulations.
16. His testimony remained consistent and nothing material
could be elicited during cross-examination of injured by ld.
Counsel for respondents which could assail his testimony or
impeach its veracity.
MACT No. 378/2021 Satpal Vs. Rajinder Singh Verma & Anr. Page 7 of 26
17. Following portion of cross-examination of injured being
relevant is extracted below for reference:
"I was returning to my home after getting
service of my bike from Dhansa Border. It is
correct that the offending vehicle was parked
on the side of the road. It is correct that I
was hit by the side mirror of the offending
vehicle. It is wrong to suggest that I was not
wearing helmet at the time of accident. It is
wrong to suggest that accident had taken
place due to my negligence. It is wrong to
suggest that I was driving the motorcycle
rashly and negligently. It is correct that a
compromise arrived between me and the
driver of the offending vehicle in Mediation
Centre, South West Dwarka Courts for
offence U/s 338 IPC in criminal case FIR
No.14/21 U/s 279/338 IPC".
18. Though injured Satpal did not support the case of
prosecution and admitted that driver of alleged Car was not at
fault resulting in acquittal of respondent/driver-cum-owner by the
Criminal Court, however, he has categorically denied negligence
and/or having given any statement to the police about accident
being caused due to 'giddiness'.
19. There is no dispute to the legal proposition that proof of
negligence is necessary before the owner and the insurance
company can be held liable to pay compensation to the claimants
in a petition under section 166 of M.V. Act.
20. It is, however, well settled legal position that acquittal in a
criminal case has no bearing on the determination of negligence
in a proceeding under the Motor Vehicle Act and Tribunal is
MACT No. 378/2021 Satpal Vs. Rajinder Singh Verma & Anr. Page 8 of 26
expected to make an independent inquiry to reach conclusion as
to whether negligence on the part of driver of the offending
vehicle has been proved on the touchstone of preponderance of
probability or not, rather than on proof of guilt beyond all
reasonable doubt as held in para 8 of the judgment of Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shama
Praveen & Ors. 2018 SCC Online Del 8598.
21. In N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. Vs. M. Kurumai Amal & Ors.
(1980) 3 SCC 457 it was contended before Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India that claim petition ought to be rejected as criminal
case in relation to the accident had ended in acquittal. Rejecting
the said argument, it was observed by Hon'ble Apex Court that
nature of proof required to establish culpable rashness,
punishable under IPC is more stringent than negligence sufficient
under the Law of Tort to create liability. Para 3 of the judgment
of Hon'ble Apex Court being relevant is extracted below for
reference:
"Road accidents are one of the top killers in
our country, specially when truck and bus
drivers operate nocturnally. This proverbial
recklessness often persuades the courts, as
has been observed by us earlier in other
cases, to draw an initial presumption in
several cases based on the doctrine of res
ipsa loquitur. Accidents Tribunals must take
special care to see that innocent victims do
not suffer and drivers and owners do not
escape liability merely because of some
doubt here or some obscurity there. Save in
plain cases, culpability must be inferred from
the circumstances where it is fairly
reasonable. The court should not succumb to
niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes.
MACT No. 378/2021 Satpal Vs. Rajinder Singh Verma & Anr. Page 9 of 26
We are emphasizing this aspect because we
are often distressed by transport operators
getting away with it thanks to judicial laxity,
despite the fact that they do not exercise
sufficient disciplinary control over the
drivers in the matter of careful driving. The
heavy economic impact of culpable driving
of public transport must bring owner and
driver to their responsibility to their
'neighbour'. Indeed, the State must seriously
consider no-fault liability by legislation. A
second aspect which pains us is the
inadequacy of the compensation or undue
parsimony practised by tribunals. We must
remember that judicial tribunals are State
organs and Article 41 of the Constitution
lays the jurisprudential foundation for state
relief against accidental disablement of
citizens. There is no justification for
niggardliness in compensation. A third factor
which is harrowing is the enormous delay in
disposal of accident cases resulting in
compensation, even if awarded, being
postponed by several years. The States must
appoint sufficient number of tribunals and
the High Courts should insist upon quick
disposals so that the trauma and tragedy
already sustained may not be magnified by
the injustice of delayed justice. Many States
are unjustly indifferent in this regard."
22. Claims Tribunal are therefore required to take a holistic
view of the matter as negligence of the driver in cases under
Motor Vehicle Act is required to be proved of the touchstone of
the preponderance of probability and standard of proof beyond
reasonable doubt does not apply to claim petitions under Motor
Vehicle Act as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in para
MACT No. 378/2021 Satpal Vs. Rajinder Singh Verma & Anr. Page 10 of 26
15 of Bimla Devi & Ors. Vs. Himachal Road Transport
Corporation & Ors (2009) 13 SCC 530.
23. Following observations in para 15 of aforesaid judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court being relevant are extracted herein below :
"15. In a situation of this nature, the
Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of
the matter. It was necessary to be borne in
mind that strict proof of an accident caused
by a particular bus in a particular manner
may not be possible to be done by the
claimants. The claimants were merely to
establish their case on the touchstone of
preponderance of probability. The standard
of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not
have been applied...."
24. It is apposite to note that FIR under section 279/337 IPC
was registered at PS Jaffarpur Kalan and site-plan was prepared
by the IO on the basis of CCTV Footage of the incident showing
that alleged White Maruti Car parked on the left side of the road
had suddenly moved to its right resulting in collision and bodily
injury to Satpal.
25. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kaushnuma Begum
(SMT) and Ors. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
(2001) 2 SCC 9 has referred to the "Rule in Rylands Vs.
Fletcher" read with judgments of the Constitution Bench in (i)
M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India (1987) 1 SCC 395 AND (ii)
Charan Lal Sahu Vs. Union of India (1990) 1 SCC 613 for
adopting the Rule of Strict Liability in claims for compensation
for victims of motor accident.
MACT No. 378/2021 Satpal Vs. Rajinder Singh Verma & Anr. Page 11 of 26
26. Paras 18 & 19 of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in
Kaushnuma Begum (SMT) and Ors. Vs. New India Assurance
Co. Ltd. & Ors. (Supra) being relevant are extracted below:
"18. In Gujarat SRTC vs. Ramanbhai
Prabhatbhai, the question considered was
regarding the application of the Rule in
cases arising out of motor accidents. The
observation made by E.S. Venkataramiah, J.
(as he then was) can profitably be extracted here: (SCC pp. 244-45, para 10).
"Today, thanks to the modern civilization, thousands of motor vehicles are put on the road and the largest number of injuries and deaths are taking place on the roads on account of the motor vehicles accidents. In view of the fast and constantly increasing volume of traffic, the motor vehicles upon the roads may be regarded to some extent as coming within the principle of liability defined in Rylands v. Fletcher. From the point of view of the pedestrian the roads of this country have been rendered by the use of the motor vehicles highly dangerous. 'Hit and run' cases where the drivers of the motor vehicles who have caused the accidents are not known are increasing in number. Where a pedestrian without negligence on his part is injured or killed by a motorist whether negligently or not, he or his legal representatives as the case may be should be entitled to recover damages if the principle of social justice should have any meaning at all. In order to meet to some extent the responsibility of the society to the deaths and injuries caused in road accidents there has been a continuous agitation MACT No. 378/2021 Satpal Vs. Rajinder Singh Verma & Anr. Page 12 of 26 throughout the world to make the liability for damages arising out of motor vehicles accidents as a liability without fault."
"19. Like any other common law principle, which is acceptable to our jurisprudence, the Rule in Rylands vs. Fletcher can be followed at least until any other new principle which excels the former can be evolved, or until legislation provides differently. Hence, we are disposed to adopt the Rule in claims for compensation made in respect of motor accidents."
27. FINDING: Issue No.1 is therefore decided by holding that grievous injury suffered by Satpal in motor vehicle accident on 22.02.2021 was caused as a result of rash and negligent driving of Maruti Alto K-10 Car No.HR-20AL-9991 by R1/Rajender Singh Verma (driver-cum-owner) which vehicle was insured with R2/Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd.
28. Issue No.2 Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom? ... OPP
29. Injured Satpal having suffered bodily injury in motor vehicle accident was shifted to RTRM Hospital, Jaffarpur Kalan, Delhi where MLC No.722/21 was prepared recording - Abrasions over (i) Left Knee; (ii) Left Index Finger; (iii) Left Hand AND (iv) Left Parietal Scalp Hematoma which were opined Grievous. He was referred to Higher Centre for further examination and management and remained admitted at Action Medical Institute Balaji from 22.02.2021 to 03.03.2021.
MACT No. 378/2021 Satpal Vs. Rajinder Singh Verma & Anr. Page 13 of 2630. Injured Satpal having suffered Multiple Rib Fracture Left with Fracture Left Clavicle with Left Scapula Neck with TBI with Right Temporal Contusion has undergone surgery for Elevation of Depressed Fracture with Fixation with LCP with Soft Tissue Repair Right Flavicle in course of treatment at Action Medical Institute Balaji. Quantum of compensation payable to injured is therefore to be assessed separately under pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads.
31. At the outset, it has to be borne in mind that compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly and Courts & Tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation which should be just. What would be "just" compensation is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Helen C. Rebello Vs. Maharasthra SRTC, 1999 (1) SCC 90.
32. 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 MACT No. 378/2021 Satpal Vs. Rajinder Singh Verma & Anr. Page 14 of 26 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."
33. 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 :MACT No. 378/2021 Satpal Vs. Rajinder Singh Verma & Anr. Page 15 of 26
(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.
NATURE AND EXTENT OF INJURIES
34. Petitioner Satpal having suffered Multiple Rib Fracture Left with Fracture Left Clavicle with Left Scapula Neck with TBI with Right Temporal Contusion has undergone surgery for Elevation of Depressed Fracture with Fixation with LCP with Soft Tissue Repair Right Flavicle in course of treatment at Action Medical Institute Balaji.
35. No other document has been filed on record or relied in evidence to show any other injury.
MACT No. 378/2021 Satpal Vs. Rajinder Singh Verma & Anr. Page 16 of 26MEDICINES AND TREATMENT
36. Petitioner Satpal in para 3 of affidavit Ex.PW-1/A has deposed to have spent Rs.2,00,000/- on treatment and medicines. PW-1, nonetheless, has admitted that expenses on his treatment has been paid by CGHS.
37. Aggregate sum of Rs.4,280/- (Rupees Four Thousand Two Hundred Eighty only) against (i) Bill Dated 22.03.2021 of Shree Balaji Action Medical Institute, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi AND (ii) Bill Dated 22.03.2021 of Sahu Mediways is awarded to injured towards pecuniary loss under the head - Medicines & Treatment.
CONVEYANCE AND SPECIAL DIET
38. Injured Satpal in para 3 of affidavit Ex.PW-1/A has deposed to have spent Rs.60,000/- each on conveyance & special Diet. It is assumed that injured Satpal having undergone Elevation of Depressed Fracture with Fixation with LCP with Soft Tissue Repair Right Flavicle must have used private vehicle/hired taxi for post operative treatment. A sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) is therefore awarded towards conveyance. Similarly, injured Satpal might have also needed special diet for full and complete recovery from Multiple Fracture Injuries. Another sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) is therefore awarded towards special diet. ATTENDANT CHARGES
39. Injured Satpal in para 3 of affidavit Ex.PW-1/A has deposed to have spent Rs.60,000/- on attendant and Rs.40,000/- on physiotherapy. It is assumed that petitioner Satpal having suffered Multiple Rib Fracture Left with Fracture Left Clavicle MACT No. 378/2021 Satpal Vs. Rajinder Singh Verma & Anr. Page 17 of 26 with Left Scapula Neck with TBI with Right Temporal Contusion must have needed an attendant to assist him for around 03 months even if such gratuitous service was rendered by some or the other of his family/relatives. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. Vs. Kumari Lalita 1982 SCC Online Delhi 123 has held that the victim cannot be deprived of compensation towards gratuitous service rendered by some of his family member. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of material on record, injured is awarded Rs.10,000/- x 3 = Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) towards attendant charges. LOSS OF INCOME
40. PW-1 Satpal has not produced any document verifying monthly income Rs.25,000/- from agriculture. Monthly income of injured in the absence of cogent evidence is taken as per minimum wage of 'Unskilled Worker' @ Rs.15,482/- applicable in Delhi w.e.f. 01.10.2020.
41. Satpal having suffered suffered Multiple Rib Fracture Left with Fracture Left Clavicle with Left Scapula Neck with TBI with Right Temporal Contusion remained admitted at Action Medical Institute Balaji from 22.02.2021 to 03.03.2021. He must have taken around 03 months to recover from fracture injuries and is awarded Rs.15,482/- x 3 = Rs.46,446/- (Rupees Forty Six Thousand Four Hundred & Forty Six only) under the head
- loss of income in course of treatment & recovery from fracture injuries.
PAIN AND SUFFERING MACT No. 378/2021 Satpal Vs. Rajinder Singh Verma & Anr. Page 18 of 26
42. 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
43. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in para 9 of Arvind Kumar Mishra Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (2010) 10 SCC 254 has observed that whole idea in case of assessment of all damages for personal injury is to put the claimant in the same position as he was insofar as money can. Perfect compensation is hardly possible but one has to keep in mind that the victim has done no wrong; he has suffered at the hands of wrongdoer and Court must take care to give him full and fair compensation for that he had suffered.
44. Injured Satpal having suffered Multiple Rib Fracture Left with Fracture Left Clavicle with Left Scapula Neck with TBI with Right Temporal Contusion underwent surgery for Elevation of Depressed Fracture with Fixation with LCP with Soft Tissue Repair Right Flavicle in course of treatment at Shri Balaj Action Medical Institute, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi from 22.02.2021 to 03.03.2021. He is, therefore, awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) towards Pain & Suffering. LOSS OF AMENITIES, LOSS OF EXPECTATION OF LIFE, LOSS OF FUTURE EARNING/PROSPECTS AND FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES MACT No. 378/2021 Satpal Vs. Rajinder Singh Verma & Anr. Page 19 of 26
45. 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.
46. Break-up of compensation awarded under pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads is mentioned below in tabulated form:
S. No. HEADS AMOUNT (in
Rupees)
1. Medicines & Treatment Rs.4,280/-
2. Conveyance Rs.5,000/-
3. Special Diet Rs.30,000/-
4. Attendant Charges Rs.30,000/-
5. Loss of Income Rs.46,446/-
6. Pain & Suffering Rs.30,000/-
TOTAL Rs.1,45,726/-
rounded off to
Rs.1,46,000/-
INTEREST
47. There is nothing on record to justify withholding interest on the award amount. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it will be just and proper to grant interest @ 7.5% per annum on the award amount in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mannat Johar & Anr. (2019) 15 SCC
260. Injured Satpal is therefore awarded interest @ 7.5% per annum upon award amount Rs.1,46,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Six Thousand only) from the date of filing of petition on 29.07.2021 till notice of deposit under Order XXI Rule 1 CPC to petitioner/counsel.
MACT No. 378/2021 Satpal Vs. Rajinder Singh Verma & Anr. Page 20 of 26LIABILITY
48. R1/Rajinder Singh Verma (driver-cum-owner) being principal tortfeasor driving Maruti Alto K-10 Car No.HR-20AL- 9991 in rash and negligent manner resulting in bodily injury suffered by Satpal in motor vehicle accident is liable to pay compensation along with interest to injured. However, since offending Maruti Alto K-10 Car No.HR-20AL-9991 was insured against Third Party Risk so, R2/Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. being statutorily liable under Section 149 (1) of M. V. Act shall pay the award amount along with interest to injured in the absence of any statutory defence under section 149(2) of M.V. Act.
49. FINDING : Issue No.2 is decided accordingly by holding that R2/Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. shall pay the award amount with interest to injured. RELIEF
50. Thus, in view of foregoing discussion & conclusion and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, award for a sum of Rs.1,46,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Six Thousand only) along with interest @ 7.5% p.a from the date of filing of petition on 29.07.2021 till notice of deposit under Order XXI Rule 1 CPC is passed in favour of injured and against all respondents.
51. The above-said compensation amount with interest shall be paid to injured by R2/Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd.
52. FORM-VXI MACT No. 378/2021 Satpal Vs. Rajinder Singh Verma & Anr. Page 21 of 26 SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident : 22.02.2021
2. Name of the injured : Satpal
3. Age of the injured : 49 years (at the time of accident)
4. Occupation of the injured : Agriculturist
5. Income of the injured : Rs.15,482/- (minimum wage of Unskilled Worker' applicable in Delhi w.e.f. 01.10.2020)
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken : Shri Balaj Action Medical by the injured Institute, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi
8. Period of hospitalization : 22.02.2021 to 03.03.2021
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.4,280/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs.5,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs.30,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs.30,000/-
(v) Cost of artificial limb -
(vi) Loss of earning capacity -
MACT No. 378/2021 Satpal Vs. Rajinder Singh Verma & Anr. Page 22 of 26
(vii) Loss of income Rs.46,446/-
(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.30,000/-
(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:
(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.1,45,726/-
rounded off to Rs.1,46,000/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED
16. Interest amount up to the date of @ 7.5% p.a. from award the date of filing of petition i.e. MACT No. 378/2021 Satpal Vs. Rajinder Singh Verma & Anr. Page 23 of 26 27.09.2021 till notice of deposit under Order XXI Rule 1 CPC
17. Total amount including interest Rs.1,46,000/- + interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 27.09.2021 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 21 Next Date for compliance of the 15.10.2025 Award.
53. The award amount shall be deposited by R3/Universal Sompo 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/injured and his counsel.
54. Statement of injured Satpal regarding financial status, needs and liabilities has been recorded. In view of the said statement and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the MACT No. 378/2021 Satpal Vs. Rajinder Singh Verma & Anr. Page 24 of 26 present case, the award amount shall be disbursed in following manner:-
S. Name Status Amount of Release Amount N Award Amount of FDR o
1. Sh. Injure Rs.1,46,000/- + Rs.1,46,000/- Nil d interest @ 7.5% - with Satpal p.a. from the date proportionate of filing of the interest in petition i.e. MACT 27.09.2021 till Claims SB notice of deposit Account of under Order XXI injured Rule 1 CPC Total Rs.1,46,000/- Rs.1,46,000/-
55. Injured has mentioned details of Savings Bank Account No.59161406396 with Allahabad Bank, Village Dhansa, New Delhi (IFSC Code: ALLA0210396) in his statement recorded on 11.03.2025 and it is requested that award amount may be transferred in the said SB Account.
56. Accordingly, Manager, State Bank of India, District Courts Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi is directed to transfer Rs.1,46,000/- with proportionate interest in SB Account No.59161406396 with Allahabad Bank, Village Dhansa, New Delhi (IFSC Code: ALLA0210396).
57. R3/The Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. shall inform the injured/counsel regarding award amount being deposited in MACT Account through registered post.
58. Copy of this award be sent to the Manager, SBI, District Courts Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi AND Manager, MACT No. 378/2021 Satpal Vs. Rajinder Singh Verma & Anr. Page 25 of 26 Allahabad Bank, Village Dhansa, New Delhi (IFSC Code:
ALLA0210396) for information/ compliance.
59. Dasti copy of award be given to Ld. Counsel for injured and insurance company.
60. Ahlmad is directed to prepare separate miscellaneous file to be listed on 15.10.2025 for filing compliance report.
61. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by TARUN TARUN YOGESH
Announced in the open Court YOGESH Date:
2025.09.03
on 01.09.2025 16:51:58 +0530
(Tarun Yogesh)
PO, MACT-01, Dwarka Courts,
New Delhi
MACT No. 378/2021 Satpal Vs. Rajinder Singh Verma & Anr. Page 26 of 26