Delhi District Court
Jalauddin(Dar) vs Sandeep Goel (469/22 Svr) on 5 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. ADITI GARG
DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
PO MACT (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No. 601/2023
FIR No. 469/2022
PS Sarita Vihar
U/s 279/338 IPC 3/181 MV Act
CNR No.: DLSE01-000268-2023
Jalaluddin Vs. Sandeep & Anr
Jalaluddin
S/o Mustak Husen
R/o RZ -2092, Gali No.26,
Tughlakabad Extension, Kalakaji
South Delhi, Delhi-110019.
.....Petitioner / claimant
Versus
1. Sandeep Goel
S/o Sh. Govind Ram Goel
R/o K-1202, BPTP Park,
Sector 82, Greater Faridabad, Haryana.
......R-1/ Driver cum owner
2. Tata AIG Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.
22, 2nd Floor, Community Center
New Friends Colony, New Delhi.
....R-2/ Insurance Co.
Date of accident : 16.09.2022
Date of filing of DAR : 20.01.2023
Date of Decision : 05.02.2026
MACT No. 601/2023 Jalaluddin Vs. Sandeep Goel & Anr. (rpt) Page No. 1 of 39
AWARD
1. DAR
(a) The Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred to as
"DAR"), as filed by the Investigating Officer, is being treated as
a claim petition under Section 166(1) read with Section 166(4) of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The present claim pertains to the
alleged road traffic accident of Sh. Jalaluddin (hereinafter
referred to as the injured), who is stated to have suffered injuries
due to the rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing
Registration No. HR 51CH 4500. The said vehicle was being
driven & owned by Sandeep Goel (hereinafter referred as R-1)
and insured with M/s Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd.
(hereinafter referred to as Respondent No.2).
2. Brief description of DAR:
(a) Preliminary information regarding the accident was
received at PS Sarita Vihar vide DD No. 18A dated 17.09.2022,
concerning the hospitalization of the injured at HAH Centenary
Hospital, Hamdard Nagar, New Delhi. Pursuant thereto, the
police officials reached the said hospital and collected the MLC
of the injured, wherein it was reported that the injured had
already been discharged. Thereafter, the IO visited the residence
of the injured and recorded his statement. The injured stated that
on 16.09.2022 at about 08:15 PM, he was returning from Shanti
Bhawan, Sarita Vihar (allegedly his workplace), to his residence
at Tughlakabad Extension on his bicycle. When he reached near
Sarita Vihar Metro Station, his bicycle was hit by a car bearing
registration no. HR-51CH-4500 from behind, which was being
driven in a rash and negligent manner. As a result, he fell on the
road along with his bicycle and sustained injuries on his face and
MACT No. 601/2023 Jalaluddin Vs. Sandeep Goel & Anr. (rpt) Page No. 2 of 39
right shoulder. The injured further stated that public persons
present at the spot helped him and moved him to the side of the
road. The driver of the offending vehicle was apprehended by
public persons at the spot. In the meantime, his friends, namely
Javed and Abrar, reached the spot and clicked photographs of the
offending vehicle. The driver of the offending vehicle assured the
injured that he would bear the medical expenses but subsequently
switched off his mobile phone.
(b) After recording the statement of the injured, an FIR was
registered by the IO and investigation was carried out. During the
course of investigation, relevant procedural formalities were
completed, including preparation of the site plan, service of
notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act upon the
registered owner, seizure of documents of the offending vehicle,
mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle, and recording of
statements of material witnesses.
(c) Upon verification from the concerned authority, it was
found that the driving licence of the driver had expired on the
date of the accident, pursuant to which appropriate penal
provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act were added.
(d) The statement of Sh. Abrar, friend of the injured, was also
recorded. He stated that he along with Jalaluddin and some other
friends were crossing the road from Ashram towards Badarpur on
foot from the wrong side. When the traffic signal turned red, he
crossed the road but noticed that Jalaluddin had not reached the
other side. Upon looking back, he found Jalaluddin lying on the
road with his bicycle and bleeding from his face. He further
noticed that the rear wheel of the bicycle was twisted. The driver
MACT No. 601/2023 Jalaluddin Vs. Sandeep Goel & Anr. (rpt) Page No. 3 of 39
of the offending vehicle was present at the spot and disclosed his
name as Sandeep Goel. Abrar clicked photographs of the
offending vehicle. He also stated that the driver gave his contact
number to public persons and paid Rs. 1,000/- to the injured
while assuring to bear further medical expenses. The bicycle of
the injured was taken to Shanti Bhawan by another person.
During the course of investigation, final opinion on the MLC was
obtained and the injuries were opined to be grievous in nature.
Upon completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed
against Respondent No. 1/driver for causing grievous injuries to
the injured Jalaluddin by driving the offending vehicle in a rash
and negligent manner. The Detailed Accident Report (DAR) was
also filed before the Tribunal.
3. Reply/ Written Statement:
(a) In response to the DAR, a Written Statement was filed on
behalf of the respondent no. 1/ driver cum owner submitting that
the accident in question occurred solely due to the negligence of
the injured/claimant himself. It is stated that the injured was
riding his bicycle on the wrong side of the road after crossing the
road by jumping over the divider at a place where no designated
crossing or turn was provided. It is further submitted that the
injured was in a hurry and, due to his own negligent conduct, lost
balance and fell down, thereby sustaining injuries. It is
categorically denied that the accident occurred due to any rash or
negligent act on the part of the respondent driver. It is further
submitted that Abrar, companion of the injured, also stated in his
statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the injured,
along with other companions including Jalaluddin, was riding the
bicycle on the wrong side of the road. On the basis of the said
MACT No. 601/2023 Jalaluddin Vs. Sandeep Goel & Anr. (rpt) Page No. 4 of 39
facts, it is submitted that the injured himself was solely
responsible for the occurrence of the accident. It is also submitted
that the offending vehicle was duly insured on the date of the
accident with M/s Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited
and, therefore, no liability can be fastened upon respondent no. 1.
Without prejudice, it is submitted that if any liability is found to
exist, the same is liable to be indemnified by the insurer.
(b) A separate response to the DAR has also been filed on
behalf of the insurance company, wherein liability to pay
compensation has been specifically denied and a prayer for
exoneration has been made. It is contended that the driver of the
offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving
licence on the date of the accident, thereby constituting a breach
of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
(c) It is further submitted by the insurance company that the
injured himself was solely negligent, as he jumped over the
grill/divider on NH-2, a road meant for fast-moving, non-stop
traffic, and thereafter plied his bicycle on the wrong side of the
road. It is stated that the injured suddenly came in front of the
offending vehicle, leaving no opportunity for the driver to avoid
the accident, as a result of which the injured sustained injuries.
On the said grounds, the insurance company has sought
exoneration from liability.
4. Issues:
(a) From the pleadings of parties, following issues were
framed vide order dated 28.03.2024:
i). Whether the petitioner suffered injuries in a road traffic
accident on 16.09.2022 due to rash and negligent driving of
MACT No. 601/2023 Jalaluddin Vs. Sandeep Goel & Anr. (rpt) Page No. 5 of 39
vehicle bearing no. HR 51CH 4500 being driven & owned
by R-1 and insured with R-2? OPP.
ii). Whether the injured is entitled to any compensation, if
so, to what extent and from whom?OPP
iii). Relief.
5. Disability
(a) A Disability Certificate has also been placed on record,
reflecting 13% permanent physical disability in relation to the
right upper limb of the injured.
6. Evidence:
(a) Matter was then listed for Petitioner's Evidence. PW-1
/injured Jalaluddin tendered his evidentiary affidavit as
Ex.PW1/A and relied upon various documents including his
Identity proves, medical treatment documents, medical bills as
well as Detailed Accident Report as Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/5 and
Mark C. He was also cross examined by counsel for driver cum
owner as well as counsel for insurance company.
(b) Petitioner Evidence was then closed. Matter was thereafter
listed for Respondent Evidence.
(c) Sh. Sandeep Goel, driver cum owner/ R-1 stepped in the
witness box in his defence and tendered his evidentiary affidavit
as Ex.RW1/A. He relied upon copy of his Driving License as
Ex.R1, copy of RC as Ex.R2; copy of insurance policy as Ex.R3
and copy of judgment dated 10.01.2025 of Ld. JMFC-05, South
East, Saket Court as Ex.R4. He was cross examined on behalf of
claimant as well as insurance company.
MACT No. 601/2023 Jalaluddin Vs. Sandeep Goel & Anr. (rpt) Page No. 6 of 39
(d) No further evidence was recorded by R-1/ driver cum
owner. Insurance Company chose not to lead any evidence in its
defence. Respondent Evidence was accordingly closed. Matter
was then listed for final arguments.
7. Final Arguments:
(a) Final Arguments were advanced by all the contesting
counsels.
(b) Learned counsel for the claimant argued that the injured
sustained grievous injuries due to the rash and negligent driving
of the offending vehicle by respondent no. 1. It was submitted
that as a result of the accident, the claimant suffered permanent
physical disability, which has adversely affected his functional
capacity and ability to earn his livelihood. Learned counsel
submitted that at the time of the accident, the injured was
engaged in the work of stitching and tailoring and was earning
about Rs. 25,000/- per month. It was contended that due to the
injuries and resultant disability, the claimant has been rendered
incapable of performing his work with the same efficiency as
prior to the accident. On these grounds, a prayer was made for
grant of fair, just, and reasonable compensation in favour of the
claimant.
(c) Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no. 1, i.e. the
driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle, argued that the
accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the injured
himself. It was submitted that the injured was crossing the road
from the wrong side after jumping over the barricades/divider
and was carrying the bicycle on his shoulder. It was further
MACT No. 601/2023 Jalaluddin Vs. Sandeep Goel & Anr. (rpt) Page No. 7 of 39
argued that despite the availability of a foot over bridge at the
spot, the claimant failed to use the same and chose to cross the
road in a negligent manner. Learned counsel submitted that
Abrar, the alleged eye-witness, did not support the claimant's
version and had turned hostile. It was further argued that
respondent no. 1 had, in fact, helped the injured at the time of the
accident and that the injured was careless, as he was allegedly
looking only ahead and not towards the right or left while
crossing the road. It was also argued that the claimant had
already received an amount of Rs. 5,000/- as full and final
compensation prior to filing of the DAR. Learned counsel further
contended that respondent no. 1 has been acquitted by the
concerned criminal court and, therefore, no negligence can be
attributed to him.
(d) Learned counsel for the insurance company adopted
similar arguments and submitted that the offending vehicle was
not being driven in a rash or negligent manner and that the
injuries were the result of the claimant's own negligence. It was
argued that the claimant had left the first hospital against medical
advice (LAMA) and thereafter went to another hospital, which
casts doubt on the nature and seriousness of the injuries. It was
further contended that the injuries were only in the nature of
dislocation, did not require any surgical intervention, and could
be managed by physiotherapy. Learned counsel also argued that
the claimant has failed to place on record any proof of his
educational qualifications or of his alleged occupation as a tailor,
and therefore, if any income is to be assessed, the same should be
taken on the basis of minimum wages of an unskilled worker.
MACT No. 601/2023 Jalaluddin Vs. Sandeep Goel & Anr. (rpt) Page No. 8 of 39
8. Discussion:
(a) On the basis of material on record, evidence adduced and
arguments addressed, issue wise findings are as under :
Issue No.1
i). Whether the petitioner suffered injuries in a road traffic
accident on 16.09.2022 due to rash and negligent driving of
vehicle bearing no. HR 51CH 4500 being driven & owned
by R-1 and insured with R-2? OPP.
(b) In order to prove the issue, the claimant examined himself
as PW-1. In his affidavit Ex.PW-1/A, PW-1 deposed that on
16.09.2022 at about 08:20 PM, he was riding his bicycle and
crossing Mathura Road near Sarita Vihar when the offending
vehicle bearing registration no. HR-51CH-4500, being driven by
respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner, hit him from
behind, due to which he fell on the road and sustained injuries on
his face and right shoulder. He deposed that driver of the
offending vehicle and other public persons shifted him to the side
of the road and that the driver of the offending vehicle assured
him to bear the medical expenses. He further specified that his
colleagues reached the spot and clicked photographs of the
offending vehicle and thereafter he was shifted to HAH hospital.
(c) During cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that barricades
were installed at the spot and that crossing the road despite
barricades was against traffic rules. He also admitted that several
persons were crossing the road along with him and that there was
a traffic signal at the spot. He further admitted that he had
received a sum of Rs.5,000/- from respondent no.1 prior to filing
of the DAR. However, he denied the suggestion that the accident
MACT No. 601/2023 Jalaluddin Vs. Sandeep Goel & Anr. (rpt) Page No. 9 of 39
occurred due to his sole negligence and stated that the offending
vehicle had hit him from behind.
(d) PW-1 also submitted that his affidavit Ex. PW-1/A was
prepared by his counsel and that the contents of the same were
not explained to him in vernacular language, nor was the
affidavit signed by him in his presence. However, this contention
does not materially affect the case of the claimant. The presence
of the claimant at the spot, the occurrence of the accident, and the
injuries sustained by him are duly corroborated by the medical
records and police investigation. Further, the claimant admitted
lodging of the complaint with the police, affixed his thumb
impression thereon, and his oral testimony during cross-
examination substantially supports the occurrence of the
accident. In MACT proceedings, which are summary in nature,
the evidence has to be appreciated on the basis of overall
probabilities, and mere procedural irregularity in the execution of
the affidavit cannot outweigh the consistent documentary and
circumstantial evidence on record.
(e) Respondent no.1/driver-cum-owner entered the witness
box and took the defence that the accident occurred due to the
sole negligence of the claimant, who was allegedly crossing the
road from the wrong side after jumping over the barricades and
not using the nearby foot over bridge. He further relied upon his
acquittal in the criminal case. During cross-examination,
respondent no.1 admitted that he was driving the offending
vehicle at the relevant time, that his vehicle was seized by the
police, and that he had not filed any complaint or protest petition
alleging false implication.
MACT No. 601/2023 Jalaluddin Vs. Sandeep Goel & Anr. (rpt) Page No. 10 of 39
(f) The Tribunal has also perused the police record. The IO,
after investigation, prepared the site plan, seized the offending
vehicle, conducted mechanical inspection, recorded statements of
witnesses, served notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles
Act upon the owner, and filed the charge-sheet against
respondent no.1 for rash and negligent driving. The charge-sheet
has not been challenged by respondent no.1. The medical records
placed on record corroborate that the claimant sustained injuries
in a road traffic accident on the relevant date and time.
(g) It is an admitted position that the accident took place and
that respondent no.1 was present at the spot and had rendered
assistance to the claimant. The presence of the claimant at the
spot and the involvement of the offending vehicle are not in
dispute. Although respondent no.1 has been acquitted by the
criminal court, such acquittal does not conclude the issue of
negligence in proceedings before this Tribunal, as the standard of
proof in MACT cases is based on preponderance of probabilities
and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. The fact that the
claimant was crossing the road from a non-designated place or
that a foot over bridge was available may amount to a traffic
violation on the part of the claimant, but the same does not, by
itself, absolve the driver of the offending vehicle of his
responsibility to drive with due care and caution. Rash and
negligent driving is to be judged independently of a pedestrian's
violation, particularly at or near a traffic signal where pedestrian
movement is reasonably expected and visible. Even if the
claimant violated traffic rules, the driver was still under a duty to
remain vigilant and to regulate the speed of his vehicle to avoid
causing harm.
MACT No. 601/2023 Jalaluddin Vs. Sandeep Goel & Anr. (rpt) Page No. 11 of 39
(h) However, the material on record also shows that the
injured was not completely careful at the time of the accident.
During cross-examination, he admitted that he crossed the road
despite barricades, that such crossing was against traffic rules,
and that he was in a hurry and was looking only ahead while
crossing the road. It is also admitted that several persons were
crossing the road in the same manner. A person crossing a busy
road is expected to be cautious and to observe traffic from all
sides, especially when designated pedestrian facilities are
available nearby. Crossing the road in violation of traffic rules
and without due care exposes one's life to risk and reflects lack
of caution on the part of the road user. In these circumstances,
contributory negligence on the part of the claimant is made out
and is assessed at 10%, which shall be deducted from the total
compensation payable.
(i) It is well settled that filing of a charge-sheet is a strong
corroborative circumstance pointing towards negligence.
Accordingly, this Tribunal holds that the accident occurred due to
rash and negligent driving of the offending motorcycle by
driver / R-1. (Support drawn from the Judgment in the case of
National Insurance Company Vs. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287
Delhi as referred and relied by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in case of Ranjeet & Anr. Vs. Abdul Kayam Neb & Anr SLP (C)
No. 10351/2019).
(j) Further, In the absence of cogent and conclusive proof that
the accident occurred solely due to the claimant's negligence, the
cited judgments are clearly distinguishable and irrelevant to the
facts of the present case.
MACT No. 601/2023 Jalaluddin Vs. Sandeep Goel & Anr. (rpt) Page No. 12 of 39
(k) It is a well-established legal principle that negligence in
motor accident cases should be determined based on the
preponderance of probabilities, not on proof beyond reasonable
doubt. The facts and circumstances must be considered in a broad
and practical manner. It is also settled that proceedings under the
Motor Vehicles Act are different from regular civil suits and are
not strictly governed by the technical rules of the Indian
Evidence Act. (as observed by Their Lordships of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Bimla Devi & Ors. v.
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors., (2009) 13 SCC
530 further referred and relied by Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in recent pronouncement in the case of Mathew Alexander
vs Mohammed Shafi SLP (Crl) No.8211 of 2022).
(l) In view of the above analysis of material on record
including evidence adduced on record, charge-sheet against R-1,
it is held that the accident was caused by speedy and reckless
driving on the part of driving of the offending vehicle. Issue No.1
is thus decided in favour of the petitioner and against the
respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2
"Whether the injured is entitled to any
compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?
OPP"
9 Sec. 168 MV Act enjoins the Claim Tribunals to hold an
inquiry into the claim to determine the compensation payable and
pass an award. Relevant portion of Section 168 MV Act is
reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
"(1) Award of the Claims Tribunal.--On receipt of an
application for compensation made under section 166, the
Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the application to
MACT No. 601/2023 Jalaluddin Vs. Sandeep Goel & Anr. (rpt) Page No. 13 of 39
the insurer and after giving the parties (including the insurer) an
opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim or, as
the case may be, each of the claims and, subject to the
provisions of section 162 may make an award determining the
amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and
specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be
paid and in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall specify
the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver
of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them,
as the case may be: Provided that where such application makes
a claim for compensation under section 140 in respect of the
death or permanent disablement of any person, such claim and
any other claim (whether made in such application or otherwise)
for compensation in respect of such death or permanent
disablement shall be disposed of in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter X.
.
.
10 "....Money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered." {as observed in the case of H. West and Son Limited Vs. Shephard 1958 -65 ACJ 504 (HL, England)}. It recognizes that the physical damage caused once cannot be fully undone. Something which remains as an indelible permanent sign of an unfortunate incident cannot be balanced merely by paying some monetary compensation. The process of damage and the ugly scars left on physical body and mental self, navigating through the entire process post accident and the unintended but compulsory turns that it brings in the course of life is indeed painful and traumatic. It is also required to be underlined that the damage is not restricted to the tangible injuries visible on the body of the injured rather catapults the lives of his family members also.
11. The assessment or grant of compensation is a small attempt to render assistance to the injured to navigate through the hairpin unanticipated sudden and traumatic turn in order to bring some elbow space for him to move towards stability and MACT No. 601/2023 Jalaluddin Vs. Sandeep Goel & Anr. (rpt) Page No. 14 of 39 normalcy to the extent possible. The underlying principle remains thus to make good the damage so far as possible as equivalent in money.
12. Section 168 MV Act puts an obligation over Tribunal to assess 'just' compensation with the object of putting the sufferer in the same position as nearly as possible as he would have been if he had not sustained the wrong. It is worthwhile to reproduce certain observations made by Karnataka High Court in the case of K. Narasimha Murthy v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd ILR 2004 KAR 2471 as referred and relied in the case of Rekha Jain Vs. National Insurance Company Limited Civil Appeal No. 5370- 5372 of 2013 which enumerates the milestones to be kept in mind by the Tribunal in an endevour to assess just compensation, at the same time acknowledging that any amount of money cannot compensate fully an injured man or completely renew a shattered human physical frame with the observations as under:
"16. The Courts and Tribunals, in bodily injury cases, while assessing compensation, should take into account all relevant circumstances, evidence, legal principles governing quantification of compensation. Further, they have to approach the issue of awarding compensation on the larger perspectives of justice, equity and good conscience and eschew technicalities in the decision-making. There should be realisation on the part of the Tribunals and Courts that the possession of one's own body is the first and most valuable of all human rights, and that all possessions and ownership are extensions of this primary right, while awarding compensation for bodily injuries. Bodily injury is to be treated as a deprivation which entitles a claimant to damages. The amount of damages varies according to gravity of injuries."
13. It is also settled that the monetary assessment is a methodology known to law as social and legal security to a victim even though the nature of injuries and the individual MACT No. 601/2023 Jalaluddin Vs. Sandeep Goel & Anr. (rpt) Page No. 15 of 39 ramifications might vary in different cases, therefore, it is understandable that one remedy cannot heal all. Further, the loss is in the nature of deprivation and it is unlike a personal asset with a price tag which can be simply awarded and therefore, complete accuracy in making such assessment is not humanly possible. The endevour is thus to make an assessment as best and as fair as possible under the given circumstance. The uncertainty of bringing justness to an assessment has been recognized, still holding that substantial damages must be awarded. The observations made by Lord Halsbury in the case of Mediana In re 1900 AC 113 (HL) give valuable insights into the aspect and reproduced as under:
"......Of course the whole region of inquiry into damages is one of extreme difficulty. You very often cannot even lay down any principle upon which you can give damages; nevertheless it is remitted to the jury or those who stand in place of the jury, to consider what compensation in money shall be given for what is a wrongful act. Take the most familiar and ordinary case: how is anybody to measure pain and suffering in money counted? Nobody can suggest that you can by any arithmetical calculation establish what is the exact amount of money which would represent such a thing as the pain and suffering which a person has undergone by reason of an accident....... But nevertheless the law recognises that as a topic upon which damages may be given"
14. The uncertainty involved has also been recognized by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rekha Jain (supra) where observations of Lord Blacburn in the case of Livingstone Vs. Rawyards Coal Company were referred as under:
".......where any injury is to be compensated by damages, in settling the sum of money to be given... you should as nearly as possible get at that sum of money which will put the party who has been injured.. in the same position as he would have been if he had not sustained the wrong...."
15. It is further observed by their Lordship in the case of MACT No. 601/2023 Jalaluddin Vs. Sandeep Goel & Anr. (rpt) Page No. 16 of 39 Rekha Jain (supra) as follows:
"41.....Besides, the Court is well advised to remember that the measures of damages in all these cases 'should be such as to enable even a tortfeasor to say that he had amply atoned for his misadventure'. The observation of Lord Devlin that the proper approach to the problem or to adopt a test as to what contemporary society would deem to be a fair sum, such as would allow the wrongdoer to 'hold up his head among his neighbours and say with their approval that he has done the fair thing' is quite opposite to be kept in mind by the Court in assessing compensation in personal injury cases."
16. It is also settled that the compensation is not granted only for the physical injury but for the entire loss which results from the injury in an endevour to place the victim in a position as close as possible as prior to the accident (support drawn from National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors (2017) 16 SCC 680 also in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343). It is also settled as held in catena of judgments that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and the object of the Tribunal ought to be to assist the injured persons, (support drawn from Helen C Rebello (Mrs) & Ors. v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Anr (1999) 1 SCC 90).
17. It is settled that an injured is required to be compensated for his inability to lead full life, his inability to enjoy those natural 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 (support drawn from C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 as further referred and relied in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) and then in a recent pronouncement of Sidram Vs Divisonal Manager United India Insurance Company & Anr SLP (Civil) No.19277 of 2018).
MACT No. 601/2023 Jalaluddin Vs. Sandeep Goel & Anr. (rpt) Page No. 17 of 39
18. What is required of the Tribunal is to attempt an objective assessment of damages as nearly as possible without fanciful or whimsical speculation even though, some conjecture specially in reference of the nature of disability and it consequence would be inevitable. {support drawn from the case of Raj Kumar (supra) as referred and relied in case of Sidram (supra)}.
19. Observing that a measure of damages cannot be arrived with precise mathematical calculations and that much depends upon peculiar facts and circumstances of any matter, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India elaborated upon the expression "which appears to it to be just" in the case of Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty and Another, (2003) 7 SCC 197.
20. The observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K. Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited (2012) 12 SCC 274 provide valuable insights into the factors to be weighed by the Tribunal for determination of quantum of compensation, the relevant extract of which is reproduced as under:
"10. It is noteworthy to state that an adjudicating authority, while determining the quantum of compensation, has to keep in view the sufferings of the injured person which would include his inability to lead a full life, his incapacity to enjoy the normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries and his ability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. Hence, while computing compensation the approach of the Tribunal or a court has to be broad- based. Needless to say, it would involve some guesswork as there cannot be any mathematical exactitude or a precise formula to determine the quantum of compensation. In determination of compensation the fundamental criterion of "just compensation" should be inhered."
21. The compensation has been broadly delineated as pecuniary and non pecuniary in the case of R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest MACT No. 601/2023 Jalaluddin Vs. Sandeep Goel & Anr. (rpt) Page No. 18 of 39 Control India Pvt Ltd. 1995 AIR 755. It is worthwhile to reproduce certain observations made therein:
"9....while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial;
(iii) other material loss. So far non- pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life."
22. The issue of determination of compensation in a personal injury matter was extensively deliberated by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) Relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced hereunder for further discussion:
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.
MACT No. 601/2023 Jalaluddin Vs. Sandeep Goel & Anr. (rpt) Page No. 19 of 39
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)
(b),
(iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.
7. Assessment of pecuniary damages under Item (i) and under Item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses-- Item (iii)--depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non- pecuniary damages--Items (iv), (v) and (vi)--involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decisions of this Court and the High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability--Item (ii)
(a). We are concerned with that assessment in this case..."
23. Loss of earning during the period of treatment:
(a) PW-1/claimant deposed that at the time of the accident he was working as a tailor and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month.
However, during his cross-examination, he admitted that he has not filed any document to prove his employment or income. He further clarified that he was working with a company and left the job on his own after the accident. He stated that he was being paid salary through bank transfer, but no bank statement has been MACT No. 601/2023 Jalaluddin Vs. Sandeep Goel & Anr. (rpt) Page No. 20 of 39 placed on record. He also admitted that he was never issued any appointment letter by the employer, namely Ms. Sarita. No educational qualification certificate has been filed on record. As per the Aadhaar Card, the claimant is a resident of Delhi. In the absence of any salary certificate, appointment letter, bank statement, or any other cogent documentary evidence to substantiate the claimed income or employment, this Tribunal finds it appropriate to assess the income of the claimant on the basis of the minimum wages applicable in the NCT of Delhi for an unskilled workman as on the date of the accident. The minimum wages on such category as on the date of accident was Rs. 16,506/-.
(b) As per the medical documents placed on record, the claimant was admitted with complaints of bleeding from the right cheek, abrasions on the face, and pain along with deformity of the right shoulder. The record reflects that initially surgical intervention was advised, which itself indicates the seriousness of the injury; however, the same was later not undertaken and the shoulder dislocation was managed through closed reduction followed by application of a shoulder immobilizer. The treatment prescribed clearly required immobilization of the affected limb along with rest and medication for proper healing. The medical documents further reveal that the claimant remained under active medical supervision for subsequent months after the accident and continued to take prescribed medicines. A shoulder dislocation significantly restricts the movement of the upper limb and hampers the ability to perform routine and occupational activities. Considering the nature of injuries, the course of treatment, and the period of follow-up care, it is reasonable to MACT No. 601/2023 Jalaluddin Vs. Sandeep Goel & Anr. (rpt) Page No. 21 of 39 hold that the claimant would not have been in a position to attend to his work for a period of at least four months. Accordingly, loss of income for four months is just and proper.
(c) Accordingly, his loss of income is calculated to be Rs. 16,506/- x 4 = Rs.66,024/-
24. Loss of future earning
(a) It is part of record that petitioner has been opined with 13% permanent physical in relation to his right upper limb.
(b) Before proceeding further, it is important to understand as to what disability means and also types thereof. This aspect has been delved into by Hon'ble SC in Raj Kumar (supra):
"8. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a human being. Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor accident injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 ("the Disabilities Act", for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in Section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming compensation."
(c) The term 'disability' means the decrements to the MACT No. 601/2023 Jalaluddin Vs. Sandeep Goel & Anr. (rpt) Page No. 22 of 39 functional efficacy of body of injured whereas 'functioning' encompass all the body functions and activities for an independent life. Functional disability is to determine the extent of loss or extent of restrictive functionality considering the nature of activities required to be necessarily performed in efficient discharge of duties and the limb effected. This computes the extent of adverse effect of physical disability upon the functional efficacy of an injured person, in turn adversely impacting his earning capacity. The process entails understanding and enumerating the skill set required for performing specific activities. To sum up, functional disability basically measures the extent of ability having been compromised to carry out basic everyday tasks or even more complex tasks required for and independent living. The limitations may occur on account of disability in the personal sphere, in the social sphere and in the occupational sphere. In the personal sphere it may encompass the daily activities of a person, his body function and his involvement in basis life situations. At the societal level, it could mean difficulty in involvement and participation in social and community activities interfering the interpersonal interaction and relationship adversely impacting the civic life. When disability restricts the vocation or employment avenues to make earning for his living, it falls in the category of disability in the occupational sphere. The disability might occur on account of age or any illness and in the case at hand by way of an accident. A person living a normal life in particular set of circumstance and making his living by engaging in any work has suffered disability which might impead his daily life activities, both on a personal and social scale and might also impact his ability to continue earning MACT No. 601/2023 Jalaluddin Vs. Sandeep Goel & Anr. (rpt) Page No. 23 of 39 as much as before and his future employment avenues.
(d). What is thus required to be assessed is the effect and impact of disability upon the working efficiency of injured and whether it would adversely impact his earning capabilities in future. It is settled that the Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity.
(e). Hon'ble SC laid down certain guidelines for the Tribunal to be able to arrive at an objective figure to quantify the loss for the purpose of computing the compensation in the judgment of Raj Kumar (supra). Relevant extracts of this judgment for the purpose of further discussion are reproduced hereunder:
"Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability
9. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the same as 45% permanent disability with reference to the whole body. The extent of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of a percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole body. If there is 60% permanent disability of the right hand and 80% permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent of permanent disability with reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the body have suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to the whole body cannot obviously exceed 100%.
10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of MACT No. 601/2023 Jalaluddin Vs. Sandeep Goel & Anr. (rpt) Page No. 24 of 39 economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation.
11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that the percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation. (See for example, the decisions of this Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC 254 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1258 : (2010) 10 Scale 298] and Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC 341 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1285 : (2010) 8 Scale 567] )
12. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and, if so, the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the Tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence:
(i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary;
(ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement;
(iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is, the permanent disability suffered by the person.
If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect MACT No. 601/2023 Jalaluddin Vs. Sandeep Goel & Anr. (rpt) Page No. 25 of 39 his earning capacity.
13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood.
.
.
.
.
19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above:
(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.
(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that the percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as the percentage of permanent disability).
(iii) The doctor who treated an injured claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard to the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety.
(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors."
(f) Further in the case of "Mohan Soni Vs. Ram Avtar Tomar MACT No. 601/2023 Jalaluddin Vs. Sandeep Goel & Anr. (rpt) Page No. 26 of 39 & Ors. I (2012) ACC 1 (SC), the question at hand was deliberated and following observations as relevant in the context were made:
"In the context of loss of future earning, any physical disability resulting from an accident has to be judged with reference to the nature of work being performed by the person suffering the disability. This is the basic premise and once that is grasped, it clearly follows that the same injury or loss may affect two different persons in different ways. Take the case of a marginal farmer who does his cultivation work himself and ploughs his land with his own two hands; or the puller of a cycle-rickshaw, one of the main means of transport in hundreds of small towns all over the country. The loss of one of the legs either to the marginal farmer or the cycle-rickshaw-puller would be the end of the road insofar as their earning capacity is concerned. But in case of a person engaged in some kind of desk work in an office, the loss of a leg may not have the same effect. The loss of a leg (or for that matter the loss of any limb) to anyone is bound to have very traumatic effects on one's personal, family or social life but the loss of one of the legs to a person working in the office would not interfere with his work/earning capacity in the same degree as in the case of a marginal farmer or a cycle-rickshaw-puller.
(g) The question of assessment of impact of disability on the earning capacity has been dealt in several cases but it is understood that each case has to be evaluated on its contextual dynamics established by way of evidence at hand. It brings us to a question whether extent of permanent disability as medically determined can simply be taken to be the extent of functional disability and hence, the loss of earning capacity. It has been held in various pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Hon'ble High Court that equating the two as a criteria would result in an inobjective and absurd compensation. There however, might be certain cases where the two would correspond to each other but it cannot be mechanically applied rather requires evaluation of applicable factors independently in each case to reach at a fair quantification of loss of earning capacity. MACT No. 601/2023 Jalaluddin Vs. Sandeep Goel & Anr. (rpt) Page No. 27 of 39
(h) In the case of Raj Kumar (supra), the physical functional disability of left leg was assessed to be 75% and total body disability at 37.5 %. In this case, functional disability was also assessed at 75% and it was observed that the extent of physical functional disability has to be considered so as to grant just and proper compensation towards loss of future earning as the earning capacity of injured was totally negated having been rendered incapable of doing any manual work. It was also held that if permanent disability in relation to particular limb renders the injured permanently disabled from pursuing his normal vocation or any other similar work, there is no reason as to why compensation should be granted on the basis of physical disability in relation to whole body. In another matter of Syed Sadiq Etc vs Divisional Manager,United India AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT 1052, where functional disability was considered to be 65% by Hon'ble High Court in case of a vegetable vendor whose right leg had to be amputated was set aside and it was observed that loss of limb is often equivalent to loss of livelihood specially in manual labour cases and determined the functional disability at 85%. In another matter of Arvind Kumar Mishra, injured suffered grievous injuries and remained in coma for about 2 months and was held to be permanently disabled to the extent of 70% with his right hand amputated whereas his loss of earning capacity was held to be 90%. Similarly in case of K Janardhan v United India Insurance Company AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2384, Hon'ble Supereme Court of India, held that a tanker driver suffered 100% functional disability and incapacity to earn as a tanker driver as his right leg was amputated from the knee. In the case of Pappu Deo Yadav v MACT No. 601/2023 Jalaluddin Vs. Sandeep Goel & Anr. (rpt) Page No. 28 of 39 Naresh Kumar, AIR 2020 SC 4424, injured suffered loss of an arm and therefore, was unable to carry out his functions as a typist / data entry operator and thus acknowledging the impact of injury upon the income generating capacity of victim, the extent of functional disablement and loss of income generating earning capacity was equated with the extent of permanent disablement as medically assessed at 89%. Similarly, in the case of Sidram (supra), injured suffered paraplegia due to accident and was medically assessed with permanent disability to the tune of 45%, however, he was held to have suffered 100% loss of earning capacity.
(i) The injured has been assessed with 13% permanent physical disability in relation to the right upper limb, as reflected in the Disability Certificate placed on record. It is pertinent to note that the injured underwent prolonged treatment and remained under active medical supervision for several months following the accident.
(j) As regards functional disability, it is well settled that the percentage of physical disability does not ipso facto correspond to an equivalent loss of earning capacity. The same must be evaluated in the context of the nature of avocation pursued by the injured at the time of the accident.
(k) In the present case, the injured was engaged in tailoring work, which inherently requires continuous and coordinated use of the upper limbs, particularly the right hand, for cutting, stitching, and handling fabric. The permanent impairment of the right upper limb would inevitably interfere with precision, speed, endurance, and overall efficiency in performing such work. The MACT No. 601/2023 Jalaluddin Vs. Sandeep Goel & Anr. (rpt) Page No. 29 of 39 injury is likely to result in residual pain, stiffness of the joint, reduced range of movement, and difficulty in sustained or repetitive activities involving the affected limb.
(l) In these circumstances, the injured is bound to face long-
term functional limitations which would materially diminish his capacity to perform his vocational duties with the same level of competence, consistency, and productivity as prior to the accident.
(m) Taking an overall view of the medical evidence on record, the nature of avocation of the injured, and in the absence of any material to suggest that the disability is attributable to any pre- existing condition or prior injury, this Tribunal considers it just and reasonable to assess the functional disability of the injured at 7% with respect to the whole body for the purpose of determining loss of earning capacity.
24(i). Future Prospect:
(a) It is also held therein that future prospect (as laid down in the well considered judgment of National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680) shall be payable, not only in fatal cases but also in the case of permanent disability. The observations made in the said case as relevant to the context are reproduced hereunder:
"6. The principle consistently followed by this court in assessing motor vehicle compensation claims, is to place the victim in as near a position as she or he was in before the accident, with other compensatory directions for loss of amenities and other payments. These general principles have been stated and reiterated in several decisions.
7. Two questions arise for consideration: one, whether in cases of permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor accident, the claimant can seek, apart from compensation for MACT No. 601/2023 Jalaluddin Vs. Sandeep Goel & Anr. (rpt) Page No. 30 of 39 future loss of income, amounts for future Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. [Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683. This court referred to the pronouncements in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 551; Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka (2009) 6 SCC 1; Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan (2009) 13 SCC 422; Raj Kumar v.
Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343. Govind Yadav spelt out these principles by stating that the courts should, "in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily. If the victim of the accident suffers permanent disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the loss of earning and his inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident." These decisions were also followed in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar Mohanty, (2018) 3 SCC 686. prospects too; and two, the extent of disability. On the first question, the High Court no doubt, is technically correct in holding that Pranay Sethi involved assessment of compensation in a case where the victim died. However, it went wrong in saying that later, the three-judge bench decision in Jagdish was not binding, but rather that the subsequent decision in Anant10 to the extent that it did not award compensation for future prospects, was binding. This court is of the opinion that there was no justification for the High Court to have read the previous rulings of this court, to exclude the possibility of compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement. Such a narrow reading of Pranay Sethi11 is illogical, because it denies altogether the possibility of the living victim progressing further in life in accident cases - and admits such possibility of future prospects, in case of the victim's death.
(b) Hon'ble Supreme Court further discussed several cases involving permanent disability and observed as under:
"20. Courts should not adopt a stereotypical or myopic approach, but instead, view the matter taking into account the realities of life, both in the assessment of the extent of disabilities, and compensation under various heads. .
.
What is to be seen, as emphasized by decision after decision, is the impact of the injury upon the income generating capacity MACT No. 601/2023 Jalaluddin Vs. Sandeep Goel & Anr. (rpt) Page No. 31 of 39 of the victim. The loss of a limb (a leg or arm) and its severity on that account is to be judged in relation to the profession, vocation or business of the victim; there cannot be a blind arithmetic formula for ready application. On an overview of the principles outlined in the previous decisions, it is apparent that the income generating capacity of the appellant was undoubtedly severely affected".
(c) Aadhar Card forms part of DAR, as per which his date of birth is 01.06.1970, therefore, his age as on the date of accident was about 52 years. Since the injured was between 50 to 60 years (at the time of accident) and purportedly earning fixed income thus as mandated in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) and other case laws, the percentage towards future prospect is taken to be @ 10 %. Further, as tabulated in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), multiplier of 11 is applicable.
(d) In view of the above discussion of law, the calculation under future loss of income in the present case is as under:
(i) Annual income (16,506/-. x12) = Rs.1,98,072/-
(ii) Future prospect (10% of Rs.1,98,072/-) = Rs. 19,807/-
__________________
(iii) Total = Rs.2,17,879/-
(iv) Thus, Multiplicand = Rs.2,17,879/-
(v) Hence, the 'Total Loss of Future Income' shall be :-
(vi) Percentage of Functional Disability (Multiplicand X Multiplier).
7% (Rs.2,17,879/- x 11) = Rs.1,67,767/-
25. The compensation awarded against pecuniary and non-
pecuniary damages under various heads is being sequentially put in a tabulated form hereunder for ease of reference to all MACT No. 601/2023 Jalaluddin Vs. Sandeep Goel & Anr. (rpt) Page No. 32 of 39 concerned:
Sl. no. Pecuniary loss : - Quantum
1. (i) Expenditure on treatment : The Rs.18,615/-
claimant has placed on record original medical bills, collectively exhibited as Ex. PW1/5, amounting to a total sum of Rs. 18,615/-. The said bills are original in nature and have not been disputed or challenged by the respondents. There is no material on record to doubt their authenticity or genuineness. Accordingly, the entire amount of Rs. 18,615/- is held to have been duly proved and is hereby awarded to the claimant/injured towards medical expenses incurred on account of the injuries sustained in the accident.
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance : No Rs. 20,000/- documentary evidence has been placed on record by the claimant to substantiate the exact expenditure incurred towards conveyance. However, the medical record reflects that the injured sustained grievous injuries, including dislocation of the right shoulder, and remained under active medical supervision for several months. The nature of injuries would have necessitated repeated visits to the hospital for treatment, physiotherapy, and follow-up consultations.
Accordingly, on an overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- is awarded to the claimant towards conveyance expenses.
(iii) Expenditure on special diet : There Rs.20,000/- is no prescription for special diet. The nature of injuries sustained by the injured suggest that he must have been advised and would have required to consume healthy wholesome protein rich MACT No. 601/2023 Jalaluddin Vs. Sandeep Goel & Anr. (rpt) Page No. 33 of 39 diet for efficient and prompt recovery.
By guess work, compensation can be awarded for special diet.
(iv) Cost of nursing / attendant : The Rs.20,000/-
claimant has not placed on record any documentary proof to establish expenditure incurred towards attendant charges during the period of hospitalization or recovery. However, considering the nature of injuries sustained, it cannot be denied that the injured would have required assistance for his day-to-day activities during hospitalization and subsequent recovery period, either through a paid attendant or the support of family members.
It is well settled that even in the absence of documentary evidence, compensation under the head of attendant charges is liable to be awarded, as the value of such services cannot be ignored merely because they were rendered gratuitously by family members. Accordingly a sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards nursing /attendant.
(v) Loss of income : As discussed Rs.66,024/- above:
2. Non-Pecuniary Loss :
(I) Compensation of mental and Rs.1,00,000/- physical shock as well as pain and (Rs.50,000/- + Rs.50,000/-) suffering : Considering the injuries sustained by injured and discussed earlier it is considered that he must have suffered immense physical, mental and emotional trauma for what he was compelled to undergo on account of injuries sustained in the accident. There is no measure with the court to quantify the pain and suffering of the injured, MACT No. 601/2023 Jalaluddin Vs. Sandeep Goel & Anr. (rpt) Page No. 34 of 39 however, an attempt is being made to compensate in terms of money for the agony she must have suffered. Therefore, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-
(Rs.50,000/-+ Rs.50,000/- for both heads) is awarded to the injured against pain, suffering as well as mental trauma sustained in the accident.
(iii) Loss of amenities of life : It Rs.20,000/- compensates the victim on account of his inability to enjoy the basic amenities of life as any other normal person can, taking into account the age and the deprivation he would have to undergo and suffer due to injuries. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by claimant, an amount of Rs. 20,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities.
(iv) Loss of future Income: As discussed Rs.1,67,767/- above:
Total Compensation Rs. 4,32,406/-
Deduction, if any, There are two deductions to be effected in the present case:
(i) 10% towards contributory negligence, as assessed herein; and
(ii) Rs. 5,000/-, which the claimant has candidly admitted to have received from R-1 (driver-cum-owner) prior to the filing of the DAR.
Accordingly, a sum of Rs.
43,240/- (being 10% of Rs.
4,32,406/-) along with Rs.
5,000/-, is liable to be deducted from the total compensation amount.
Rs.4,32,406/- (-) Rs.48,240/-
= Rs.3,84,166/-
Total Compensation after deduction Rs.3,84,166/- Interest As directed below MACT No. 601/2023 Jalaluddin Vs. Sandeep Goel & Anr. (rpt) Page No. 35 of 39
26. Interest :
(a). It is settled that any fixed rate of interest cannot be prescribed for all cases at all times and would largely depend upon the prevailing rate of interest as per the applicable guidelines. As such, interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum is deemed fit and accordingly granted in the present case. (Reliance placed upon National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Yad Ram MAC APP 526/2018 also referred and relied in case of The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Sohan Lal & Ors. MAC APP 70/2024 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court).
27. LIABILITY
(a) The issue of rash and negligent driving has already been discussed and decided hereinabove, wherein it has been held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1. The Insurance Company has admitted the validity and subsistence of the insurance policy in respect of the offending vehicle on the date of the accident.
(b) Although the Insurance Company has taken a statutory defence in its Written Statement that respondent no.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, the said defence could not be substantiated. Respondent no.1 entered the witness box and deposed that he was holding a valid driving licence at the relevant time and produced a copy of the same, which has been exhibited as Ex.R-2. He also placed on record the Registration Certificate of the offending vehicle, which shows that the vehicle falls under the non-transport category. The driving licence of respondent no.1 for non- transport vehicles was valid from 17.06.2015 to 03.07.2032, MACT No. 601/2023 Jalaluddin Vs. Sandeep Goel & Anr. (rpt) Page No. 36 of 39 which covers the date of the accident.
(c) Respondent no.2/Insurance Company neither cross- examined respondent no.1 on the aspect of the driving licence nor examined any official from the concerned Licensing Authority or any investigator to challenge the validity of the driving licence. In the absence of any rebuttal or contrary evidence, the testimony of respondent no.1 regarding holding a valid driving licence remains unchallenged and is accepted.
(d) In view of the above facts, it is held that the Insurance Company has failed to establish any breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy or any statutory defence available under the Motor Vehicles Act. Consequently, the Insurance Company is under a legal obligation to indemnify the insured/owner for the vicarious liability arising out of the rash and negligent act of respondent no.1.
(e) Accordingly, the principal award amount/compensation shall be payable by the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle, along with simple interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the DAR till its actual realization. (If there is any order regarding excluding of interest for specific period same be complied at the time of calculation of award amount. Further, in case the matter adjourned sine die, interest for the period i.e. the date of concerned order till revival of the case, shall not be awarded. Further, if any auction proceeds is received, same be adjusted in the final award amount).
28. The award amount shall be deposited by the Insurance Company. Counsel for the Insurance Company is also directed to furnish the complete case details, including the MACT case MACT No. 601/2023 Jalaluddin Vs. Sandeep Goel & Anr. (rpt) Page No. 37 of 39 number, CNR number, FIR number, name of Police Station, name of the deceased/claimant(s), date of accident, and any other relevant particulars, to the State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi at the time of getting the amount deposited. The amount shall be deposited through RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in the account titled "MACT FUND PARKING", Account No. 00000042706870765, IFSC Code SBIN0014244, MICR Code 110002342, under intimation to the Nazir of this Tribunal.
29. Release of Award Amount/ Disbursement
(a) Since the amount is not huge, same be released to claimant/ injured along with proportionate interest in his bank account.
30. In terms of the Practice Directions issued by Hon'ble High Court, vide reference no. 134/Rules/DHC, dated 14.05.2025, the claimant (s) are directed to produce their bank account details along with either a certificate of the banker giving all details of the bank account of the person or persons entitled to receive the compensation including IFS Code, or a copy of cancelled cheque of the bank account to this Tribunal with seven days of the date of Award, if not already placed on record. They are also directed to file their Aadhar Card and PAN Card if not already filed.
31 Directions to the Branch Manager, SBI, Saket Court Complex
(a). The Manager, SBI, Saket Court Complex, is further directed to verify the documents and details submitted by the claimant pertaining to their bank account, and upon proper verification, under certification of the Branch Manager (of the bank whose details have been provided by the claimant for MACT No. 601/2023 Jalaluddin Vs. Sandeep Goel & Anr. (rpt) Page No. 38 of 39 release of the compensation amount) disburse the amount, directed to be released to the claimant, directly into the verified bank account of the claimant under notice to the Tribunal.
33. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD.
1 Date of accident 16.09.2022 2 Name of injured Jalaluddin 3 Age of the injured 52 years 4 Occupation of the injured As per record 5 Income of the injured As per minimum wages.
6 Nature injury Grievous injury disability 7 Medical treatment taken As per record.
by the injured:
8 Period of Hospitalization As per record. 9 Whether any permanent Grievous injury disability disability?
34. Copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost. The copy of award be also sent to the Ld. Secretary DLSA and Digitally signed concerned criminal court.
ADITI by ADITI GARG
Date:
(Pronounced in the
open court on 05.02.2026) GARG 2026.02.05
16:46:12 +0530
(Aditi Garg)
PO-MACT-01 (South-East)
Saket Court/ New Delhi
05.02.2026
MACT No. 601/2023 Jalaluddin Vs. Sandeep Goel & Anr. (rpt) Page No. 39 of 39