Delhi District Court
Master Awan vs Shambhu Yadav on 8 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHELLY ARORA
DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
PO MACT (SE), SAKET COURTS, NOW ASJ WEST, TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
MACT No.1028/2025
FIR No. 175/2018
PS Jamia Nagar
U/s 279/338 IPC
CNR No.: DLSE01-012623-2025
Master Awan Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors.
Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui
S/o Sh. Amirul Islam
R/o F-109, 2nd Floor,
Shaheen Bagh, Abul Fazal Enclave,
New Friends Colony, South Delhi
.....Petitioner / claimant
Versus
1. Sambhu Yadav
S/o Raj Kumar Yadav
R/o B-58, Suresh Ka Makan, Gali no.4
Near Bablu Dairy, Madanpur Khadar
New Delhi.
......R-1/ Driver
2. Raj Kumar Mehra
S/o Late Sh. Hari Chand
R/o T-238, Baljeet Nagar, New Delhi
R/o 1457, near Khari Kuan
Chauhan Mohalla, Madanpur Khadar
MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 1 of 54
Sarita Vihar
......R-2/ Owner
3. National Insurance Company Ltd.
Office at 2E/9, Jhandewalan Extension,
New Delhi.
....R-3/ Insurance Co.
Date of accident : 11.05.2018
Date of filing of Petition : 10.12.2018
Date of Decision : 08.12.2025
AWARD
1. DAR
1(a) Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred as DAR)
filed is being treated as Claim Petition under Section 166 (1) read
with Section 166 (4) MV Act. It pertains to alleged accident of
Sh. Amirul Islam, Smt. Amna Parveen and Master Awan Ahmad
Siddiqui (hereinafter referred as injured persons) by offending
vehicle bearing Registration No. DL 1GC 2228 (Truck), being
driven by Sh. Shambhu Yadav (hereinafter referred as R-1),
owned by Sh. Raj Kumar Mehra, (hereinafter referred as R-2)
and insured with M/s National Insurance Company Ltd.
(hereinafter referred as R-3).
2. Brief Facts:
2(a) Preliminary information regarding accident in question
was received vide DD No. 41B dated 11.05.2018 at PS Jamia
Nagar in respect of "accident+quarrel+injured", upon receipt of
which ASI Sher Singh alongwith Ct. Shamsher left for the spot of
accident at Shaheen Bagh Market, Kalindi Kunj Road where a
truck bearing Reg. No. DL 1GK 2228 along with its driver were
found. It was told that the injured persons have already been
MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 2 of 54
rushed to hospital. Driver of truck identified himself as Shambhu
Yadav S/o Raj Kumar Yadav. ASI Sher Singh collected MLC of
all three injured persons namely Amirul Islam, Smt. Amna
Parveen and Master Awan from AIIMS Trauma Center. FIR was
got registered. Notice under Section 133 MV Act was served
upon owner of the truck R-2/Raj Kumar who also accepted that
R-1/ driver/Shambhu Yadav was driving the vehicle. Injured
Amirul Islam also reached at the spot, at whose instance site plan
was prepared by Investigating Officer. The truck along with
documents was seized. Statement of witnesses were recorded.
Shri Amirul Islam, one of the injured persons, stated that he
along with his wife and son Master Awan was commuting by his
motorcycle bearing Reg. No. BR 02P 3417, when it was struck
by speedy and rashly driven truck bearing Reg. No. DL 1GC
2228 because of which all of them fell down and sustained
injuries. Accidental motorcycle was also produced on 19.05.2018
and was seized. During investigation, it was found that the
Driving License produced by driver of the truck was never issued
by the authority concerned, therefore, relevant penal provisions
were added. Upon conclusion of investigation, driver of the
offending vehicle was charge sheeted under relevant provisions
of law. Detailed Accident Report (DAR) was also filed by
Investigating Officer.
3. Written Statement/Reply:
3(a) All the parties appeared at the time of filing of DAR.
Respondent No.1/driver, respondent no.2/owner chose not to file
any reply. Accordingly right to file reply was closed.
3(b) WS/ Reply was however filed by insurance company
MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 3 of 54
wherein it admitted that the offending vehicle was validly insured
on the date of accident, however, denied liability contending
breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy by owner
of the offending vehicle on the premise that the driving license
produced by driver/ R-1 was found to be fake. It is also stated
that the offending vehicle was a goods vehicle carrying
hazardous goods and thus, no liability can be fastened upon the
insurance company.
4. Issues:
4(a) From the pleadings of parties, following issues were
framed vide order dated 21.01.2019:
i). Whether the injured persons namely Amirul Islam, Amna
Parveen and Master Awan suffered injuries in a road traffic
accident on 11.05.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of
vehicle bearing no. DL 1GC 2228 being driven by R-1,
owned by R-2 and insured with R-3? OPP.
ii). Whether the injured is entitled to any compensation, if
so, to what extent and from whom?OPP
iii). Relief.
5. Disability:
5(a) Disability Certificate was received from Pt. Madan Mohan
Malaviya Hospital certifying 51% permanent disability in
relation to right lower limb of injured Awan Ahmad Siddiqui.
6. Evidence:
6(a) Matter was then listed for Petitioner's Evidence. PW-1 Sh.
Amirul Islam (father of injured master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui as
well as another injured in connected case bearing MACT
no.1108/2018) tendered his evidentiary affidavit as Ex.PW1/A.
MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 4 of 54
He relied upon following documents:
Ex.PW1/1- Copy of his Aadhar Card (OSR)
Ex.PW1/2- Copy of ID proof of her wife and son.
Ex.PW1/3- Copy of MLC
Ex.PW1/4- Copies of MLC of wife of Amirul Islam
Ex.PW1/5 - Copy of MLC of injured Awan Ahmad Siddiqui
Ex.PW1/6- DAR
Ex.PW1/7- Medical Papers including medical bills of Awan
Siddiqui.
Ex.PW1/8- Copy of tuition fees receipt.
PW-1 was cross examined by counsel for Insurance
Company.
6(b) He also tendered his additional evidentiary affidavit as
Ex.PW1/1 and relied upon copy his Aadhar Card as well as
Aadhar Card of injured Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui as
Ex.PW1/A, Disability Certificate of injured Awan Ahmad
Siddiqui as Ex.PW1/C and medical bills as Ex.PW1/D (colly).
He was cross examined on behalf of insurance company.
6(c) PW-2 Ms. Amna Parveen (mother of injured in present case
as well as injured herself in connected case bearing MACT
no.1027/2025) tendered her evidentiary affidavit as Ex.PW2/A
and relied upon copy of her Aadhar Card as Ex.PW2/1 and Copy
of MLC as Ex.PW2/2. She was cross examined on behalf of
counsel for insurance company.
6(d) PW-1 Sh. Amirul Islam (mentioned as PW-3 in the
testimony) again tendered his evidentiary affidavit as Ex.PW3/A
and relied upon document as Ex.PW3/1 to Ex.PW3/5 including
MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 5 of 54
his Aadhar Card, Identifiy Proof of injured Awan, Copy of
School ID of injured Awan, Copies of medical treatment record
and tuition fees of injured Awan.
6(e) Petitioner Evidence was closed. Matter was then listed for
Respondent Evidence.
6(f) R-1/Driver/ Shambhu Yadav chose not to lead any evidence.
6(g) R2W1 Sh. Kulbhushan Kumar Mehra (on behalf of owner)
tendered his evidentiary affidavit as Ex.R2W1/A and relied upon
copy of General Power of Attorney as Mark A, copy of RC of the
vehicle bearing No. DL 1GC 2228 as Mark B. He was cross
examined by counsel for claimant as well as counsel for
Insurance Company.
6(h) R3W1 Sh. Rajneesh Kumar (Assistant Manager of National
Insurance Co. Ltd) who tendered his evidentiary affidavit as
Ex.R3W1/A and relied upon Notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC,
Postal Receipts and Service Report as Ex.R3W1/2 to Ex.R3W1/4
respectively.
6(i) R3W2 Sh. Satyendra Singh, Accountant, ARTO Office, Sant
Kabir Nagar, Uttar Pradesh proved report dated 30.07.2024 in
respect of license no. UP 5820070001085. He was cross
examined at length on behalf of R-2/ owner.
6(j) Respondent Evidence was closed. Matter was thereafter
listed for Final Arguments.
7. Final Arguments:
7(a) Final Arguments were advanced by counsel for claimants
as well as counsel for insurance company.
MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 6 of 54
7(b) Counsel for all the claimants argued that the accident
occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle which was seized from the spot itself as per the
charge sheet. He further argued that all the claimants had
sustained injuries in the accident. He also pointed that injured
child Awan Ahmad Siddiqui has been in a deplorable medical
condition having sustained 51% permanent disability in right
lower limb as per the Disability Assessment Report. He also
pointed out that injured child could not attend the school for one
year post accident and suffered lost of study. He asserted that all
the respondents being driver, owner and insurance company are
responsible to pay the compensation against the injuries
sustained by claimants.
7(c) None appeared for R-1/ driver to advance arguments.
Counsel on behalf of R-2/ owner argued that the accident took
place on account of rash and negligent driving of accidental
vehicle by claimant/ injured Amirul Islam who was trying to
overtake the running truck without looking at the vehicle coming
from the opposite side while the offending vehicle was being run
as per the applicable traffic rules at a normal speed on the left
side of the road. He also stressed that driver of the offending
vehicle had a valid DL issued by RTO Sant Kabir Nagar at the
time of accident and the license was got verified by owner of the
vehicle. He argued that the driver was hired by owner on
11.02.2018 who was diligently performing his duty. He argued
that the vehicle was validity insured and denied the entire
liability.
7(d) Counsel for the insurance company argued that the
MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 7 of 54
R-1/driver was charge-sheeted for driving the offending vehicle
without a valid driving license on the date of the accident, as the
license produced by him was initially certified to have never
been issued in his name. She further contended that the driving
license bearing No. UP 5820070001085, produced by R1 and R2
after filing the DAR before the Court, was subsequently verified
by the Investigating Officer and noted as a genuine document.
She relied upon the testimony of R3W2 Sh. Satyendra Singh,
Accountant, ARTO Office, Sant Kabir Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, an
official from the RTO, who highlighted discrepancies in the
documents uploaded by R1/driver/license holder in the process of
procuring the said DL.
7(e) She further asserted that the license was renewed only in
June 2018, and thus was not valid for driving a transport goods
vehicle on the date of the accident. She also pointed out that the
offending vehicle was issued a permit to carry hazardous goods,
as testified by PW-1 Amirul Islam, whereas the driver's license
did not carry any authorization to drive hazardous goods
vehicles. On these grounds, she contended that R1/driver did not
possess any effective driving license to operate the offending
vehicle on the date of the accident, which constituted a breach of
the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. She therefore
prayed for exoneration of the insurance company from liability to
indemnify R2 in respect of its obligations towards the third party.
7(f) She further argued that the physiotherapy bills filed by the
claimant are not supported by any medical prescription and,
therefore, should not be allowed. She relied upon the judgment in
Master Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance
MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 8 of 54
Company Ltd., 2013 AIR SCW 6452 to determine the
appropriate compensation in cases involving disability suffered
by a child victim. She further contended that the claimants are
not entitled to interest for the period where the court had
specifically closed the interest liability. She also highlighted that
claimants Amirul Islam and his wife Amna Parveen sustained
only simple injuries, and that Amirul Islam failed to file any
evidence regarding their employment, income, qualifications,
leave records, or loss of salary. She pointed out that no document
was filed to establish that the injured child, Awan, was unable to
attend school for a year. She further noted that, according to the
father's cross-examination, the child, who was in pre-primary at
the time of the accident, was studying in Class IV in a normal
school, which indicates normal academic progression, thereby
asserting that the child did not suffer any substantial loss of
study.
8. Discussion:
On the basis of material on record, evidence adduced and
arguments addressed, issue wise findings are as under :
Issue No.1
i). Whether the injured persons namely Amirul Islam, Amna
Parveen and Master Awan suffered injuries in a road traffic
accident on 11.05.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of
vehicle bearing no. DL 1GC 2228 being driven by R-1,
owned by R-2 and insured with R-3? OPP.
8(a) PW-1 Amirul Islam (one of the claimant/ injured in
connected case bearing MACT no.1108/2018) affirmed in
MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 9 of 54
evidentiary affidavit Ex.PW1/A that he along with his wife
Aamna Parveen (claimant in connected case bearing MACT
no.1017/2025) and minor son Awan Ahmad Siddiqui (injured in
the present case) were commuting by motorcycle bearing Reg.
No. BR 2P 3417 on 11.05.2018 at about 10.45 AM near Jasola
Red Light when a speedy and rashly driven Tata Truck bearing
Reg. No. DL 1GC 2228 came from behind and rammed into his
motorcycle on the rear side injuring all the riders. He clarified
that the vehicle was a commercial truck for transporting gas
cylinder. He was not cross examined in respect of rash and
negligent driving by the offending vehicle.
8(b) PW-2 Amna Parveen also testified on the same lines as
PW-1 Amirul Islam. She was also not cross examined on the
aspect of rash and negligent driving by truck driven by R-1.
8(c) The police was immediately informed about the accident
vide PCR call. The offending vehicle as well as its driver was
found and seized from the spot of accident by the IO. As such, no
dispute has been raised in respect of identification / involvement
of offending vehicle. Even though, driver was found at the spot
along with the truck by the IO, upon service of notice u/s 133
MV Act, R-2 / owner also confirmed that the vehicle was being
driven by him. Both the vehicles reflected fresh accidental
damages as per the mechanical inspection report. The offending
vehicle has suffered the accidental impact on the front side which
substantiate the affirmation of PW-1 and PW-2 that the scooter
was hit on the rear side by the offending vehicle. Site plan also
supports the same. There is nothing on record to controvert the
assertions made by PW-1/ Amirul Islam & PW-2 Amna Parveen.
MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 10 of 54
No reply to DAR has been filed either by the driver (R-1) or
Registered owner (R-2) thereby reflecting that they have not even
attempted to controvert the allegations. No evidence has been led
by R-1/ driver to show that victim did not act responsibly as
expected under the circumstances to avert the accident. It is
settled that filing of charge sheet itself is a significant step
towards the inference of negligence on the part of driver of the
offending vehicle. (Support drawn from the Judgment in the case
of National Insurance Company Vs. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287
Delhi as referred and relied by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in case of Ranjeet & Anr. Vs. Abdul Kayam Neb & Anr SLP (C)
No. 10351/2019). It is also settled that adverse inference can be
drawn against the driver of the offending vehicle in case he does
not appear as a witness to depose and clarify about his stance in
respect of the accident. (support drawn from the judgment in the
case of Cholamandlam insurance company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh
2009 (3) AD Delhi 310.)
8(d) 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
MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 11 of 54
vs Mohammed Shafi SLP (Crl) No.8211 of 2022).
8(e) 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"
"The determination of quantum must be liberal, not niggardly since
the law values life and limb in a free country in generous scales"
{as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Concord of India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nirmala Devi
(1979 )4SCC 365}
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
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)
MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 12 of 54
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 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 MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 13 of 54 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 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 MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 14 of 54 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 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 MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 15 of 54 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).
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)}.
MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 16 of 54
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 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 MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 17 of 54 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.
(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).
MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 18 of 54 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. PECUNIARY DAMAGES A. Damages under pecuniary heads primarily involves reimbursement of actual amount spent on account of injury suffered in an accident to undo the monetary loss, suffered by the claimant, as ascertainable from the evidence on record. Given hereunder are various heads under which compensation for pecuniary damages is assessed:
(i) Expenditure on Medical Treatment:
(a) The claimant has placed on record medical bills as Ex.
PW1/D (colly) along with summary showing that a total expenditure of Rs. 1,38,050/- was incurred on the treatment of Master Awan. The insurance company has objected that, except MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 19 of 54 for a bill of Rs.150/-, the remaining bills pertain to physiotherapy and are not supported by any separate medical prescription and therefore should not be granted. The Discharge Note issued by AIIMS Trauma Centre, placed on record as Ex. PW1/7, shows that Master Awan had suffered a fracture of the right thigh bone (right femur) along with a wound on the right thigh, for which he underwent external fixation and a muscle-skin flap procedure which reflects that he suffered a serious fracture and soft-tissue injury of the right thigh requiring surgery. The follow-up records of AIIMS dated 27.06.2018, 18.07.2018, 10.09.2018 and 17.12.2018 clearly show that the child was advised knee physiotherapy as part of his continued recovery. Further on follow up dated 07.01.2019, he was categorically advised rigorous physiotherapy. Physiotherapy is a well-recognized and essential part of post-operative rehabilitation, particularly for a small child recovering from a major femur fracture and flap surgery, to restore movement, prevent stiffness, and ensure proper healing. Therefore, the physiotherapy bills filed by the claimant are a direct consequence of the injuries sustained and the treatment advised by AIIMS, even if each individual session does not carry a separate prescription. Accordingly, the objection of the insurance company is without merit, and the physiotherapy expenses form a legitimate and necessary part of the medical treatment undergone by Master Awan. A sum of Rs 1,38,050/- therefore granted towards expenditure on medical treatment including physiotherapy.
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance:
(a) Any bill towards expenditure on conveyance has not been filed. It is noted that as per the discharge note of AIIMS Trauma MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 20 of 54 Centre (Ex.PW1/7 colly), injured Master Awan remained admitted from 11.05.2018 to 19.05.2018, again from 08.06.2018 to 22.06.2018, and further from 03.10.2018 to 11.10.2018, besides several follow-up visits in between. He was also advised rigorous physiotherapy extending over a considerable period. It is further relevant that both parents of the injured Master Awan had also sustained injuries in the same accident, and therefore, every visit to the hospital or physiotherapy centre necessarily required special arrangements for transportation. In such circumstances, it is reasonable to presume that the family had to frequently travel to AIIMS Trauma Centre and other treatment facilities for prolonged follow-ups and physiotherapy sessions. Given the repeated admissions, multiple follow-up consultations, and continued physiotherapy requirements for a small child, coupled with the fact that both parents themselves were injured and not in a position to use ordinary means of travel, a substantial amount would certainly have been spent on conveyance. Accordingly, even in the absence of specific bills, the expenditure claimed appears justified, and a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards conveyance is reasonably awarded.
(iii) Expenditure on Special Diet:
(a) Any bill/ document has not been filed to show the expenditure on special diet consumed by claimant/ injured during the treatment period. However, considering the nature of injuries suffered by the minor child and the course of treatment reflected in the discharge summaries and follow-up records, it is evident that he underwent major surgical intervention, prolonged hospitalization, and extensive physiotherapy over several months. A child of such tender age, recovering from a serious MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 21 of 54 femur fracture and flap surgery, would necessarily require a protein-rich and highly nutritious diet to facilitate bone healing, tissue regeneration, and overall recovery. Parents of an injured child naturally are expected to take special care to provide supplements, strengthened meals, and easily digestible nutritious food on a continuous basis, especially when the child is immobilized for long durations and undergoing physiotherapy. In these circumstances, even in the absence of a specific prescription, it is reasonable to presume that a considerable amount must have been spent on ensuring such a special diet.
Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- is awarded towards special diet.
(iv) Expenditure towards services of Attendant:
(a) Any specific proof of payment was not filed by the claimant to show that services of any attendant during the course of treatment were availed. However, considering the serious nature of injuries sustained by Master Awan and the extensive course of treatment, including multiple hospital admissions, surgeries, and prolonged physiotherapy, it is evident that a responsible attendant was necessarily required to look after him at all times. A child of three years, recovering from major femur surgery and soft-tissue flap procedures, would not have been able to manage his basic needs, physiotherapy sessions, or hospital routines without constant care and supervision. It is a well-settled principle that even in the absence of a formal attendant, a close family member who looks after the injured child has to be compensated for attendant charges, recognizing the time, effort, and care involved in supporting the patient's recovery. Considering the prolonged MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 22 of 54 duration of treatment and the continued disability the child has to endure, it is reasonable to presume that a substantial sum would have been spent not only during treatment but also for future attendant requirements to assist him in daily activities.
Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- is awarded towards attendant charges, covering both the treatment period and future care needs.
(v) Loss of Study
(a) PW-1 (referred to as PW-3 in his testimony), father of the minor injured (and injured himself in connected MACT case No. 1108/2018), testified that his son was studying in pre-primary Class 1 at Kalka Public School at the time of the accident and could not attend school for the entire year. He has placed on record the School Identity Card of his son as Ex.PW1/3 and the tuition fee receipt as Ex.PW3/5. No objection has been raised by the insurance company regarding this claim. Although no amount of compensation can truly make up for the loss of education suffered by the child, considering the evidence on record, an amount of Rs. 50,000/- is granted towards the loss of study.
(vi) Loss of future earning
(a) It is part of record that petitioner has been opined with 51% permanent physical impairment having suffered right lower 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 MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 23 of 54 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 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 MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 24 of 54 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 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.
MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 25 of 54
(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 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 MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 26 of 54 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 MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 27 of 54 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 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 MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 28 of 54 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 & 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-
MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 29 of 54 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.
(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 MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 30 of 54 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 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 MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 31 of 54 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) As per the Disability Certificate, Master Awan has suffered 51% permanent physical disability in relation to his right lower limb. The child was of tender age at the time of the accident and had to undergo extensive medical treatment over a prolonged period, including major surgery and physiotherapy. Although no direct evidence has been led to demonstrate the functional difficulties he faces in daily activities, it is evident from the nature and extent of the injury and resulting disability that he would experience significant limitations. The disability would restrict his ability to run, participate in sports, or engage in physical activities, thereby limiting his extracurricular participation and social interaction. Furthermore, the impairment of the lower limb precludes him from opting for certain vocations or employment opportunities that require manual work or mobility. The child will have to endure this disability throughout his life, which is bound to adversely affect his functional efficacy and earning capacity in comparison to able-bodied peers.
Considering these factors, and the permanent nature of the injury, his functional disability is taken to the extent of 51% in relation to whole body.
(j). The Prime question here is to determine the notional MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 32 of 54 income of deceased child to be able to compute the compensation. Counsel for insurance company placed reliance upon judgment in case of Master Mallikarjun (supra) to determine the appropriate compensation in cases involving disability suffered by a child victim. However, that case involved facts peculiar to the matter before the Court and did not lay down a uniform method for determining the notional income of a minor. Hon'ble Supreme Court itself noted that parameters laid down were not inviolable standards and assessments could be made as per factual requirements of present case. In the present case of Master Awan, who was only three years old at the time of the accident, it is impractical to assume any actual earnings.
(k) At this state, it is imperative to reproduce the observations made by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of United India Insurance Company Limited v. Sh. Jamaluddin Khan & Ors MAC APP 273/2020 (which was further referred and relied upon in Om Prakash Vs. Reliance Gen. Insurance Company Ltd & Ors AIR 2017 Supreme Court 4836) which lays down that the most reasonable way to calculate the loss of dependency, even for a minor, is by using the minimum wages as notified by the state where the child lived at the time of the accident and also add 40% to the notional income for future prospects as per ratio of case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the relevant extract of which is re- produced hereunder for ready reference:
"The above judgments, therefore, have not laid down the basis on which notional income in case of a child is to be determined by the Tribunal, but have, on facts of those cases, held that the notional income determined by the learned Tribunal did not warrant any interference.
21. In view of the above decisions of the Supreme Court and of this MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 33 of 54 Court, in my opinion, the most reasonable basis for determining the loss of dependency, even in the case of a minor, would be the minimum wages notified by the State Government where the minor resides at the time of the accident. As the notional income is being determined on basis of the minimum wages, I deem it appropriate also to add future prospects to such income at the rate of 40% by applying the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi And Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680."
22. Accordingly, it is directed that the compensation towards loss of dependency shall be assessed by taking minimum wages as notified by the Government of NCT of Delhi for the relevant period, that is 04.12.2017 for a skilled worker; 40% is to be added towards future prospects to such income; multiplier shall be 18.
(l) The Aadhaar Card of Master Awan, placed on record as Ex. PW3/2, reflects his residential address as South Delhi. Accordingly, the minimum wages of a skilled worker applicable in the NCT of Delhi on the date of the accident form the appropriate basis for determining his notional income, which stood at Rs. 16,858/- per month. In terms of the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi and followed in Jamaluddin, 40% is to be added towards future prospects, and the applicable multiplier of 18 is to be applied for further computation.
(m) 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 (Rs. 16,858/- x 12) :Rs. 2,02,296/-
(ii) Future prospect (40% of Rs. 2,02,296/-) :Rs. 80,918/-
______________________
(ii) Total :Rs. 2,83,214/-
(iv) Multiplicand :Rs. 2,83,214/-
MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 34 of 54
(v) Hence the 'Total Loss of Future Income' shall be :-
Percentage of functional disability (multiplicand x multiplier) = 51% of (Rs. 2,83,214/- x 18) :Rs. 25,99,905/-
(vi) Total loss of future income is calculated to be Rs. 29,41,508/-
24 NON-PECUNIARY LOSS A Injured is entitled to both, pecuniary as well as non- pecuniary damages. As the name suggests pecuniary damages are designed to make good the pecuniary loss which can be ascertained in terms of money whereas non pecuniary damages are general damages to compensate the injured for mental and physical shock, pain, suffering, loss of expectation of life, inconvenience, hardship, frustration, stress, dejectment and unhappiness suffered by him on account of injuries sustained in the accident. It takes into account all the aspects of a normal life which deluded injured on account of accident. Given the nature of heads covered, it is bound to involve guess work on the part of Tribunal involving some hypothetical consideration as well, primarily considering the special circumstances of the injured and the effect of those upon his future life.
B. Regarding non-pecuniary loss, following was stated in Halsbury's Laws of England, 4 th Edition, Vol. 12 (page 446) {also been referred to and relied upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sidram (supra)} "Non-pecuniary loss: the pattern: Damages awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenity constitute a conventional sum which is taken to be the sum which society deems fair, fairness being interpreted by the courts in the light of previous decisions. Thus there has been evolved a set of conventional principles providing a provisional guide to the comparative severity of different injuries, and indicating a bracket of damages into which a particular injury will currently fall. The particular circumstances of the plaintiff, including MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 35 of 54 his age and any unusual deprivation he may suffer, is reflected in the actual amount of the award.
C In case of Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC 667, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the object of an award of damages is to give the plaintiff compensation for damage, loss or injury he has suffered. The Court further held that the elements of damage recognized by law are divisible into two main groups: pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss. While the pecuniary loss is capable of being arithmetically worked out, the non- pecuniary loss is not so calculable. Non- pecuniary loss is compensated in terms of money, not as a substitute or replacement for other money, but as a substitute, what McGregor says, is generally more important than money: it is the best that a court can do.
D. Further, in the case of Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 274, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that if a collection of cases on the quantum of damages is to be useful, it must necessarily be classified in such a way that comparable cases can be grouped together. No doubt, no two cases are alike but still, it is possible to make a broad classification which enables one to bring comparable awards together. Inflation should be taken into account while calculating damages. (The above two cases were also referred and relied in the case of A. Rupin Manohar Through Sh. S. Anandha vs Mohd. Ansari & Ors. MAC App. 602/2015 decided on 17 August, 2017 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court).
E. To sum up, Compensation under non-pecuniary heads involves objective assessment of the damages in a bid to undo the loss, the injured would incur on account of his inability to lead a normal life and earn as much as he would, but for the injuries sustained.
MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 36 of 54 The whole idea behind assessment for damages for compensation is to put the claimant in the same position in so far as money can. The very nature of these damages, compulsorily involves some guesswork and hypothetical considerations, however, efforts should be made to adjudicate these on the basis of objective parameters rather than guided by subjective sympathy. The nature and severity of injury, the age, nature of disability are some of those parameters. Given hereunder are various heads under which compensation for non-pecuniary loss (general damages) is assessed:
(i) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma on account of injuries:
(a) The mental and physical loss cannot always be arithmetically computed in terms of money. These form the intangible losses suffered by injured for no fault of his. Although any form of human suffering cannot be equated in money, however, the object remains to compensate in so far as the money can compensate. Certain observations made by the Supreme Court of India in R. D. Hattangadi are relevant in the context:
"10. It cannot be disputed that because of the accident the appellant who was an active practising lawyer has become paraplegic on account of the injuries sustained by him. It is really difficult in this background to assess the exact amount of compensation for the pain and agony suffered by the appellant and for having become a lifelong handicapped. No amount of compensation can restore the physical frame of the appellant. That is why it has been said by courts that whenever any amount is determined as the compensation payable for any injury suffered during an accident, the object is to compensate such injury "so far as money can compensate" because it is impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings or personal deprivations. Money cannot renew a broken and shattered physical frame.
(b) Certain factors were also laid down for consideration in the MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 37 of 54 case of The Divisional Controller, KSRTC vs Mahadeva Shetty And Anr Appeal (Civil) 5453 of 2003 further relied in the case of Sidram (supra) for awarding compensation for pain and suffering. The observations made in the aforesaid case as relevant to the context are reproduced hereunder:
"113. Before we close this matter, it needs to be underlined, as observed in Pappu Deo Yadav (supra) that Courts should be mindful that a serious injury not only permanently imposes physical limitations and disabilities but too often inflicts deep mental and emotional scars upon the victim. The attendant trauma of the victim's having to live in a world entirely different from the one she or he is born into, as an invalid, and with degrees of dependence on others, robbed of complete personal choice or autonomy, should forever be in the judge's mind, whenever tasked to adjudge compensation claims. Severe limitations inflicted due to such injuries undermine the dignity (which is now recognized as an intrinsic component of the right to life under Article 21) of the individual, thus depriving the person of the essence of the right to a wholesome life which she or he had lived, hitherto. From the world of the able bodied, the victim is thrust into the world of the disabled, itself most discomfiting and unsettling. If courts nit-pick and award niggardly amounts oblivious of these circumstances, there is resultant affront to the injured victim. [See: Pappu Deo Yadav (supra)]
(c) Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K. Suresh (supra) observed as follows:
"2. ... There cannot be actual compensation for anguish of the heart or for mental tribulations. The quintessentiality lies in the pragmatic computation of the loss sustained which has to be in the realm of realistic approximation. Therefore, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity "the Act") stipulates that there should be grant of "just compensation". Thus, it becomes a challenge for a court of law to determine "just compensation" which is neither a bonanza nor a windfall, and simultaneously, should not be a pittance."
But the measure of compensation must reflect a genuine attempt of the law to restore the dignity of the being. Our yardsticks of compensation should not be so abysmal as to lead one to question whether our law values human life. If it does, as it must, it must provide a realistic recompense for the pain of loss and the trauma of MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 38 of 54 suffering. Awards of compensation are not law's doles. In a discourse of rights, they constitute entitlements under law. Our conversations about law must shift from a paternalistic subordination of the individual to an assertion of enforceable rights as intrinsic to human dignity. (as relied in the case of Jagdish Vs. Mohan AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT 1347, by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India).
(d) Master Awan, a child of merely three years, suffered a serious fracture of the right femur along with soft-tissue injury requiring external fixation and flap surgery, followed by multiple hospitalization and prolonged physiotherapy. In view of the nature of these injuries and the extensive treatment undergone, it is evident that the child would have endured significant pain, discomfort, and psychological trauma throughout the recovery process. Considering his tender age, prolonged suffering, and the lasting impact of such injuries, a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- is awarded towards pain, suffering and trauma.
(ii) Loss of amenities of life:
(a) It compensates the victim on account of his inability to enjoy the basis 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. Certain observations were made by Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Vijaykumar Babulal Modi vs State Of Gujarat SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20488 of 2017 referred by HSC in the case of Sidram (supra) which is reproduced hereunder:
"It appears that the claim under this head is to the tune of Rs.3 lac. However, the Tribunal has not awarded any sum under the head 'loss of amenities'. We are of the opinion that this head must take into account all aspects of a normal life that have been lost due to the injury caused. As per R.D. Hattangadi's case (supra), this includes a variety of matters such as the inability to walk, run or sit, etc. We include here too the loss of childhood pleasure such as the ability to freely play, dance, run, etc., the MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 39 of 54 loss of ability to freely move or travel without assistance. Then, there is the virtual impossibility of marriage as well as a complete loss of the ability to have sex and to have and nurture children."
(b) Due to serious injuries and the resulting permanent disability, Master Awan's ability to enjoy certain normal activities of childhood has been adversely affected for entire lifetime. His mobility stands restricted, and he may not be able to participate fully in physical sports activities, dance, free play or other activities that children of his age ordinarily enjoy. This limitation is bound to adversely affect his day-to-day living and will continue to impact him as he grows. To acknowledge this lasting reduction in his quality of life, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- is awarded under the head of loss of amenities. Additionally, such permanent disability is also likely to affect his future marriage prospects as he grows older as such an additional Rs. 1,00,000/- is granted towards loss of marriage prospects apart from amount granted under loss of amenities.
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 concerned:
Sl. no. Pecuniary loss : - Quantum
1. (i) Expenditure on treatment : Rs. 1,38,050/-
As discussed above.
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance : Rs. 30,000/-
As discussed above.
(iii) Expenditure on special diet : Rs.1,00,000/-
As discussed above.
(iv) Cost of nursing / attendant : Rs. 2,00,000/-
MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 40 of 54
(v) Loss of study: Rs.50,000/-
(viii) Loss of future income: Rs. 29,41,508/-
2. Non-Pecuniary Loss :
(i) Damages for pain, suffering and Rs. 5,00,000/- trauma on account of injuries:
(ii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 1,00,000/-
(iii) Loss of marriage prospect Rs. 1,00,000/-
Total Compensation Rs.41,59,558/-
Deduction, if any, Nil
Total Compensation after deduction Rs.41,59,558/-
Interest As directed
below
26.Interest
26(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 primary contention of the insurer was that the driver (R-1) was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and that the vehicle in question was a goods transport vehicle MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 41 of 54 carrying hazardous material, thereby requiring special endorsement and training under the Motor Vehicles Act and relevant Rules. According to the insurer, the failure of the owner (R-2) to ensure compliance with these statutory requirements disentitle the insured to seek indemnification against liability towards claimant/ insured/ third party.
(b) It is a matter of record that R-1/driver was charge-sheeted under the relevant provisions of law for driving the offending vehicle without a valid driving licence. During investigation of the present case, he produced a paper driving licence bearing no. 1085/0RISKN/10 before the IO. The IO got the same verified, and as per the verification report dated 30.06.2018 from the Transport Authority, Sant Kabir Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, it was found to have been issued in the name of one 'Krishna Pratap'. This verification report forms part of the charge sheet filed by the IO and formed basis for charge sheeting him under 3/181 MV Act.
(c) Upon appearing before the Court, R-1/driver and R-2/owner produced a smart card DL bearing no. UP5820070001085, as noted in the order dated 21.01.2019, contending that it was valid. This smart card DL bearing no. UP5820070001085 was also handed over to the IO/ASI Sher Singh with directions to verify the same. As per the record, the verification report regarding this licence was filed, as noted in the order dated 23.05.2019. A copy of the DL bearing no. UP5820070001085 with verification endorsement dated 22.05.2019 by ARTO (A), Sant Kabir Nagar, was filed by the IO and a copy was supplied. This driving license and verification report were subsequently put to the witness on behalf of insurance company (R3W2) by counsel for R-2/ owner, MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 42 of 54 identified as by Ex.R3W2/2.
(d) At the stage of Respondent Evidence, the Insurance Company summoned a competent official from the RTO Sant Kabir Nagar, Uttar Pradesh--R3W2 Satyendra Singh (Accountant, ARTO Office, Sant Kabir Nagar). He produced a report dated 30.07.2024 in respect of licence no. UP5820070001085, stating that R-1 / driver/Shambhu Yadav had procured the said licence by uploading incorrect documents and when the discrepancy in the address mentioned on the uploaded Aadhaar Card came to the knowledge of the department, notices were issued to R-1/driver vide letter nos. 603/GA/Notice/2021 dated 26.07.2021, 687/GA/Notice/2021 dated 10.09.2021, and 96/GA/Notice/2022 dated 20.04.2022. However, these could not be served due to incorrect address/ownership details. The report states that the said licence is invalid, having been obtained on the basis of wrong documents.
(e) Copies of the uploaded documents were filed as part of the report. The Aadhaar card of one 'Satyender Pratap Shahi' was uploaded, bearing self-attestation written as 'Shambhu Yadav' in Hindi. Another uploaded document was a DL, the details of which are not legible.
(f) The smart card DL no. UP5820070001085 filed on record was shown to the witness. On perusal, R3W2/ Sh. Satyendra Singh, Accountant, ARTO Office, Sant Kabir Nagar, Uttar Pradesh stated that such a licence was never issued by ARTO Sant Kabir Nagar, as the licensing authority was mentioned as 'S. K. Nagar', whereas no licence is issued under that name. He categorically deposed that the smart card DL bearing no. UP5820070001085 MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 43 of 54 filed by R-1/ driver and R-2/owner is false and was never issued from Sant Kabir Nagar Authority. He further deposed that even assuming the licence to be valid, it would still not authorise the holder to drive hazardous goods/gas cylinders, since no such endorsement exists on the licence.
(g) During cross-examination by counsel for R-2/Owner, R3W2/ Satyendra Singh clarified that the notices were issued to R-1/ driver to seek explanation regarding the incorrect address and mismatched details, but these notices were never served. He admitted that details of DL no. UP5820070001085 were available on the Saarthi Portal. He also deposed that the licence was not formally cancelled because no response to the notices was received. He confirmed that the notices were sent through a personal messenger, and upon visiting the address, it was found that no person named Shambhu Yadav ever resided there. He stated that the DL bearing no. UP5820070001085 (Ex.R3W2/2) was issued in the year 2007. Discrepancies on the Aadhaar card came to notice in the year 2021, as the department had been issuing manual licences from 2007-2018. Licence holders uploaded documents in 2017-2018, which were virtually approved by the department. Licence no. UP5820070001085 was also virtually approved in 2018 and renewed in the year 2021. During this renewal, these discrepancies surfaced, prompting issuance of notices. He did not deny that the verification stamp on Ex.R3W2/2 (copy of smart card DL no.UP5820070001085) could be from his department.
(h) From the above, it transpires that licence no. UP5820070001085 was never formally cancelled by the concerned department and thus remained valid as on the date of MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 44 of 54 the accident. It was also verified by the IO, and the verification report certified it to be valid, despite the pending inquiry regarding the uploaded documents. No action was taken to formally cancel the licence, which continued to be reflected as valid on the public portal. The licence was originally issued in the year 2007 and renewed in the year 2021, whereas accident took place in May, 2018. No postal receipts or proof of service of the unserved notices were filed by R3W2, nor is there any document showing actual attempts to serve the notices at the permanent address also mentioned in the uploaded documents. The verification report dated 30.05.2019, bearing the endorsement and stamp of ARTO Sant Kabir Nagar, further shows that R-1 had no reason to believe that his licence was invalid or cancelled on the date of the accident. Accordingly, DL no. UP5820070001085 cannot be considered invalid as on the date of accident for the purposes of this matter.
(i) The Insurance Company contends that even if DL no. UP5820070001085 was valid on the date of the accident, it did not carry the authorisation to drive a vehicle transporting hazardous goods. The entire cross-examination by counsel for R-2 centred around the validity of the DL, but not its authorisation for hazardous goods.
(j) A bare perusal of Ex.R3W2/2 and the documents filed as part of the verification report of ASI Sher Singh shows that the licence to drive a transport vehicle (M/HM) was issued on 20.01.2012 and was last renewed for validity from 22.06.2018 to 21.06.2021. Although, there appears to be a five-month gap between the original issuing date (20.01.2012) and renewal (22.06.2018), there is no direct evidence suggesting that the MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 45 of 54 licence lacked renewal covering the period of the accident on 11.05.2018. It is also evident that but the DL bearing No. UP5820070001085 does not reflect any endorsement authorising transport of hazardous goods.
(k) R2W1/ Kulbhushan Kumar Mehra, son of the owner/R-2, testified that DL no. UP5820070001085 was duly verified by the owner and appeared genuine, and therefore R-2 should not be held liable. He admitted that R-1 Shambhu was his paid driver at the time of the accident. He also admitted during cross examination that the vehicle was used to transport LPG gas cylinders, which fall under hazardous goods. He further admitted that permit Ex.R2W1/R3/A, issued on 22.03.2014 and valid until 23.03.2019, authorised carrying petrol and petroleum goods, but that the DL had no endorsement permitting the driving of a vehicle carrying hazardous goods.
(l) The MV Act doesn't explicitly define "hazardous goods", however it does recognize the need for safe transportation of these goods. The MV Act, along with other regulations, outlines requirements for the transportation of dangerous goods, including vehicle design, operator requirements, and driver training. Table 2 of Rule 137 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 defines the indicative criteria for categorization of a material as dangerous or hazardous which includes flammable liquid. Before proceeding ahead with the discussion, it is imperative to advert to Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 which lays down the educational qualifications for driver of goods carriages carrying dangerous or hazardous goods. It mandates that any such person shall additionally be required to possess the ability to read and write atleast one Indian Language and English and shall also MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 46 of 54 possess a Certificate of Training as per the syllabus prescribed therein. Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules is reproduced hereunder for ease of reference :
"[9. Educational qualifications for drivers of goods carriages carrying dangerous or hazardous goods.--24[(1) One year from the date of commencement of Central Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules, 1993, any person driving a goods carriage carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature to human life shall, in addition to being the holder of a driving licence to drive a transport vehicle, also has the ability to read and write at least one Indian language out of those 25[specified in the VIII Schedule of the Constitution] and English and also possess a certificate of having successfully passed a course consisting of following syllabus and periodicity connected with the transport of such goods."
(m) It is evident that certificate of training in prescribed syllabus has not been placed on record R-1/ driver or by R-2/ owner.
(n) Against this backdrop, it is relevant to enlist the duties or responsibilities saddled upon owner of any such vehicle transporting the hazardous goods. By Rule No. 132 of CMVR, 1989, the owner has been put under an obligation to ensure that driver of the goods carriage carrying such dangerous or hazardous goods hold a driving license as per provisions of Rule 9 of CMVR, 1989. Rule 132 in The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 has been reproduced hereunder for ready reference :
"132. [ Responsibility of the transporter or owner of goods carriage. [Rule132 substituted by GSR 338(E), dated 26.3.1993 (w.e.f. 26.3.1993).] (1) It shall be the Responsibility of the owner of the goods carriage transporting any dangerous or hazardous goods to ensure the following, namely:
(a) that the goods carriage has a valid registration to carry the said goods and the MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 47 of 54 said carriage is safe for the transport of the said goods; and
(b) the vehicle is equipped with necessary first-aid, safety equipment, tool box and antidotes as may be necessary to contain any accident.
(2) Every owner of a goods carriage shall, before undertaking the transportation of dangerous or hazardous goods in his goods carriage,satisfy himself that the information given by the consignor is full and accurate in all respects and correspond to the classification of such goods specified in rule 137.
(3) The owner of a goods carriage shall ensure that the driver of such carriage is given all the relevant information in writing as given in Annexure V of these rules in relation to the dangerous or hazardous goods entrusted to him for transport and satisfy himself that such driver has sufficient understanding of the nature of such goods and the nature of the risks involved in the transport of such goods and is capable of taking appropriate action in case of an emergency.
(4) The owner of the goods carriage carrying dangerous or hazardous goods, and the consignor of such goods shall lay down the route for each trip which the driver shall be bound to take unless directed or permitted otherwise by the Police Authorities. They shall also fix a time table for each trip to the destination and back with reference to the route so laid down.
(5) It shall be the duty of the owner to ensure that the driver of the goods carriage carrying dangerous or hazardous goods holds a driving license as per provisions of rule 9 of these rules.
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in rules 131 and 132,it shall be sufficient compliance of the provisions of these rules if the consignor transporting dangerous or hazardous goods and the owner of the goods carriage or the transporter, abides by these conditions within six months after the date of coming into force of the Central Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules,1993.]"
(o) It is evident from discussion above that, there is absolutely no compliance with the statutory obligations by R-1/driver or R-2/owner in respect of transporting hazardous goods/LPG gas cylinders. Even though the owner satisfied himself that DL MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 48 of 54 bearing no. UP5820070001085 was valid as on the date of accident, it is admitted that the relevant columns/endorsements in the DL bearing no. UP5820070001085 was blank with respect to authorisation for driving a vehicle carrying hazardous goods. Therefore, even if the DL no. UP5820070001085 is assumed to be valid for driving a transport vehicle (there being no direct evidence to show that it was not renewed on the date of accident), the driver nevertheless had no authorisation to drive a transport vehicle carrying hazardous goods on the date of the accident.
(p) It is evident that R-2/owner failed to comply with the obligations cast upon him to ensure that the driver possessed the necessary qualifications, including periodic training and specific authorisation from the competent authority, to drive the offending vehicle transporting hazardous goods at the time of the accident.
(q) R3W1 Sh. Rajneesh Kumar (Assistant Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.) affirmed by way of affidavit that the vehicle was duly insured vide policy no. 350300/31/17/10006881, valid from 28.02.2018 to 27.02.2019, which created a binding contractual obligation upon the owner/insured that the offending vehicle shall be driven only by a person holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. R3W1 also affirmed that Notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC was duly served upon R-1/ driver and R -2/ owner which were never replied to.
(r) In terms of the above discussion, it is evident that DL no. UP5820070001085, relied upon by R-2/owner, even if treated as MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 49 of 54 valid for driving transport vehicles, did not contain the mandatory authorisation or certificate/training qualification required under the Motor Vehicles Rules for transporting hazardous goods. It is noted that R-1/ driver neither filed any reply nor led any evidence to controvert the affirmation from the other side. This deficiency also constitutes a breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
(s) Accordingly, the plea raised by R-3/Insurance Company is upheld, and the defence projected by R-1 and R-2 regarding R-1 holding a valid and effective DL to drive the offending vehicle carrying hazardous goods is rejected.
(t) Insurance Company has conceded valid and effective Insurance Policy on the date of accident and has not raised any statutory defence. It has already been held that accident occurred on account of speedy and rash driving of offending vehicle. It is settled that Insurance Company is responsible to indemnify owner / insured for vicarious liability incurred by tort feaser. Therefore, such principal award amount/compensation will be payable by the insurance company of offending vehicle with simple interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of DAR till actual realization at first instance with liberty to recover the same from R-1/ driver and R-2 owner. (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).
MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 50 of 54
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 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) Entire award amount along with proportionate interest shall be kept in the form of FDR until the minor injured, Master Awan, attains the age of majority. The quarterly interest accruing on the said FDR shall be released to the father of the injured to meet the child's recurring needs and ongoing care.
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.
MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 51 of 54 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 release of the compensation amount) disburse the amount, directed to be released to the claimant, directly into the verified bank account of the claimant under notice to the Tribunal.
32. Directions with respect to Fixed Deposit:
(a) As per Practice Directions, Hon'ble High Court, vide reference no. 134/Rules/DHC, dated 14.05.2025, the bank shall invest the amount to be deposited in fixed deposit with any nationalised bank and fixed deposit shall be with the standing instructions to the bank to renew the same after periodical intervals till further orders are passed by the Tribunal.
(b) The Bank shall not permit any joint name (s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of victim i.e. the savings bank account of the claimant shall be individual savings bank account and not a joint account.
(c) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant.
(d) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(e) The maturity amounts of the FDR (s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(f) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 52 of 54
(g) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/ or debit card to claimant (s). However, in case the debit card and/ or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit freeze the account of the claimant so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant from any other branch of the bank.
(h) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque book and / or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
33. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD.
1 Date of accident 11.05.2018 2 Name of injured Awan Ahmad Siddiqui 3 Age of the injured 3 years 4 Occupation of the Study injured 5 Income of the injured This is a case of loss of study.
6 Nature injury Grievous injury and disability 7 Medical treatment taken As per record.
by the injured:
8 Period of As per record.
Hospitalization
MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 53 of 54
9 Whether any permanent Grievous injury and
disability? disability
34. Copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost. The copy of award be sent to Ld. Secretary, DLSA and Ld. Digitally Concerned Criminal Court. signed by SHELLY SHELLY ARORA ARORA Date:
2025.12.08 Announced in the open court 16:42:43 +0530 on 08.12.2025 Shelly Arora PO (MACT)-02, SE/Saket/Delhi Presently as ASJ-06, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
08.12.2025 MACT No.: 1028/2025 Master Awan Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shambhu Yadav & Ors. Page No. 54 of 54