Delhi District Court
Deepak Bansal vs Raghav Jain on 15 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF HARVINDER SINGH, DISTRICT
JUDGE-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-01, (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI
AWARD/JUDGMENT
MACT Case No.662/2019
CNR No.DLWT010076232019
Deepak Bansal
S/o Sh. Tara Chand
R/o H. No. 18, Naresh Park,
Nangloi, Delhi
Presently residing at
R/o F No.194-C, Pkt A-5 Block,
VTC, Paschim Vihar,
Sub-District Punjabi Bagh,
District West Delhi, Delhi-110063.
..............petitioner
Versus
1. Raghav Jain (Driver)
S/o Sh. Ajay Jain
R/o B-3/26, Top Floor,
Mainwali Nagar, Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi-110087.
2. Jatin Jain (Owner)
S/o Sh. Ramesh Nagar
R/o B-3/18, Top Floor,
Mainwali Nagar, Paschim Vihar,
3. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
Registered office Peninsula Business Park,
Tower-A, 15th Floor, G. K. Marg, Lower Parel,
Mumbai-400013.
........ Respondent(s)
Deepak Bansal vs. Raghav Jain & Ors.
MACT No.662/2019 Page No.1 of 33
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.15
16:41:23 +0530
Date of Institution of case : 19.08.2019
Date of final arguments : 13.05.2025
Date of pronouncement of order/judgment : 15.05.2025
FORM-XVII
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE
1. Date of the accident 05.02.2019
2. Date of filing of Form-I - Not filed
First Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to Not filed
the victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III Not filed
from the Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV Not filed
from the Owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- Not filed
Interim Accident Report
(IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA Not filed
and Form-VIB from the
Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - 19.09.2019
Detailed Accident Report
(DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay Incident took place on
or deficiency on the part of 05.02.2019 and DAR was
the Investigating Officer? If filed on 19.09.2019
so, whether any action/
direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Date not mentioned
Designated Officer by the
Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated Yes
Officer of the Insurance
Company submitted his report
Deepak Bansal vs. Raghav Jain & Ors.
MACT No.662/2019 Page No.2 of 33
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.15
16:41:26 +0530
within 30 days of the
petition/DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay No
or deficiency on the part of
the Designated Officer of the
Insurance Company? If so,
whether any action/direction
warranted?
13. Date of response of the Legal offer was not filed in
claimant(s) to the offer of the this matter
Insurance Company
14. Date of the award 15.05.2025
15. Whether the claimant(s) Yes
was/were directed to open
savings bank account(s) near
their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which 19.09.2019
claimant(s) was/were directed
to open savings bank
account(s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN
Card and Aadhaar Card and
the direction to the bank not
issue any cheque book/debit
card to the claimant(s) and
make an endorsement to this
effect on the passbook.
17. Date on which the claimant(s) 13.05.2025
produced the passbook of
their savings bank account
near the place of their
residence along-with the
endorsement, PAN Card and
Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential R/o H. No. 18, Naresh Park,
Address of the claimant(s). Nangloi, Delhi
Presently residing at
R/o F No.194-C, Pkt A-5
Block, VTC, Paschim Vihar,
Sub-District Punjabi Bagh,
Deepak Bansal vs. Raghav Jain & Ors.
MACT No.662/2019 Page
Digitally signed byNo.3 of 33
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.15
16:41:29 +0530
District West Delhi,
Delhi-110063.
19. Whether the claimant(s) Yes
savings bank account(s) is/are
near his/her/their place of
residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) Yes
was/were examined at the
time of passing of the award
to ascertain his/her/their
financial condition?
FACTUAL POSITION & PLEADINGS
1. Vide this judgment/award, this Tribunal shall decide
petition/application/DAR filed for compensation on account of
the injuries sustained by injured Deepak Bansal in a road
vehicular accident which took place on 05.02.2019 at about 7:25
pm, Near Apsara Banquet, Main Rohtak Road, Paschim Vihar,
Delhi.
CASE OF THE PETITIONER SIDE
2. Succinctly, the case put forth by petition/DAR is
that on 05.02.2019 at about 7:25 pm, injured met with an
accident with vehicle bearing registration No. DL2CAY2296
(Jeep Compass car) which took place at near Petrol Pump,
Apsara Banquet, Main Rohtak Road, Paschim Vihar, Delhi. He
was shifted to Balaji Action Hospital, Paschim Vihar, Delhi. FIR
No. 61/2019 under Section 279/338 IPC was registered against
respondent no.1. The incident happened solely due to rash and
negligent driving of respondent no.01 who was driving the
vehicle in rash and negligent manner. The respondent no.01
being driver, the respondent no.02 being owner and respondent
no.03 being the insurer of offending vehicle are jointly and
Deepak Bansal vs. Raghav Jain & Ors.
MACT No.662/2019 Page No.4 of 33
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.15
16:41:31 +0530
severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner(s).
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS
3. Notice of the application/petition/DAR was issued
to the respondents on which they appeared and filed their
WS(s)/reply(ies) to the present petition/application.
RESPONSE OF RESPONDENT NO.01 & 02.
4. In gist, the response of the respondent no.01 & 02 as
discernible from their reply/written statement is that they have
been falsely implicated in the present case. Vehicle bearing
registration No. DL2CAY2296 was insured with respondent no.3
vide policy no. 01557913380701 for period 15.01.2019 to
14.01.2020 in the name of respondent no.2. With these
averments, respondent no.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the
DAR/petition.
RESPONSE OF RESPONDENT NO.03
5. In gist, the response of the respondent no.03 as
discernible from its reply/written statement is that vehicle
bearing registration No. DL2CAY2296 was insured with it vide
policy no. 015791380701 for period 15.01.2019 to 14.01.2010.
Incident in question took place due to negligence of the injured
himself who was crossing the road at a place not meant for
crossing the road. It denied all other averments of the
DAR/petition and prayed for dismissal of the present
petition/DAR.
ISSUES
6.1 After completion of pleadings, on 11.02.2020, Ld.
Predecessor of this tribunal framed following issues:-
1. Whether the injured Deepak Bansal
suffered injuries in the accident that took
Deepak Bansal vs. Raghav Jain & Ors.
MACT No.662/2019 Page No.5 of 33
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.15
16:41:33 +0530
place on 05.02.2019 at about 7:25pm due to
rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing
registration number DL2CAY2296 by
respondent no.1 Sh. Raghav Jain, being
owned by respondent no.2 and insured with
respondent no.3? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner(s)/applicant(s)
is/are entitled to compensation, if yes, of
what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
6.2 Thereafter, matter was fixed for evidence of
petitioner side.
PETITIONER SIDE EVIDENCE
7.1 The petitioner examined himself as PW-1, tendered
his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A vide which he has
reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of the petition. He relied
upon original loan documents & fee structure/prospectus
Ex.CW1/A, copies of treatment records Ex.CW1/B, original
medical bills/medicines bills Ex.CW1/C, copies of his
educational qualification certificates Ex.CW1/D, copy of
screenshot of mail received for recruitment Ex.CW1/E, copy of
result of 5 tasks e-yantra competition IIT Bombay Ex.CW1/F1,
copies of certificate of excellence provided by IIT of Delhi &
copy of certificate provided by UIIT, Guru Gobind Singh
Indraprastha University Ex.CW1/F2, copies of electronic bills
received on his email qua purchase made by him online
Ex.CW1/G and copies/records of the cabs engaged by him after
receiving injuries downloaded from his email Ex.CW1/H in his
evidence. He was examined, cross-examined and was
discharged.
7.2 The petitioner/claimant/injured further examined Sh.
Deepak Bansal vs. Raghav Jain & Ors.
MACT No.662/2019 Page No.6 of 33
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.15
16:41:36 +0530
Manish Kumar as PW-2 who tendered his evidence by way of
affidavit Ex.PW2/A reiterating the case of petitioner qua incident.
He relied upon photocopy of his Aadhar Card Ex.PW1/1 and four
photographs along with certificate under Section 65B of The
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Ex.PW2/2 in his evidence. He was
examined, cross-examined and was discharged.
7.3 No other witness was examined by petitioner side
and matter was then fixed for respondent side evidence.
RESPONDENT SIDE EVIDENCE
8.1 Respondent no.1 &2 have examined Inspector
Manoj Chahar as R1W1. He in gist deposed that in year 2019, he
was posted as Sub-Inspector at PS Paschim Vihar East. On
05.02.2019, he was on day emergency duty from 08:00 am to
08:00 pm. At around 07:45 pm, he received D.D.Entry No.38A
from Balaji Action Hospital regarding accident. He went to
Balaji Action Hospital. He collected MLC no.8082 of one
unknown injured relating to the said DD there. Injured was male
person and was unconscious at that time. He did not find any
eye-witness to be available at the hospital. He got registered FIR
No.61/2019 PS Paschim Vihar East on the basis of DD on next
date at about 09:50 pm. He tried to search for similar
information in their PS and nearby police stations. He found out
that one DD No.37A was also recorded at PS regarding accident
at Near Apsara Banquet Hall, Rohtak Road, Peera Garhi. He
contacted the complainant/informer of D.D.No.37A. The
complainant was Manish. He told him about the manner of
incident. On being shown photographs of injured available at the
hospital, he identified the injured to be the victim of the incident
witnessed by him and reported by him vide D.D.No.37A. He
Deepak Bansal vs. Raghav Jain & Ors.
MACT No.662/2019 Page No.7 of 33
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.15
16:41:38 +0530
recorded the statement of Manish. He prepared site plan of the
incident at his instance. Manish disclosed the registration
number of offending vehicle Jeep in his statement as
DL-2CAY-2296. He got the details of registration of the vehicle
from the registration site and traced the owner as Jitin. He issued
him notice under Section 133 M. V. Act to the owner. He replied
to the notice stating that on the day and time of incident stated,
his brother Raghav was driving the vehicle in question. He
seized the offending vehicle, arrested the accused/driver, released
him on bail, got mechanically inspected the offending vehicle
and recorded statements of other witnesses. He received the
result/opinion of doctor upon the MLC of the injured who opined
the injuries suffered to be grievous in nature. He verified the
documents of the offending vehicle, collected the DL of the
accused/driver, copy of RC and insurance policy of vehicle. He
filed the challan against accused Raghav Jain before Court of Ld.
JMFC concerned for offences punishable under Section 279/337
IPC. The name of the injured was revealed about 2 - 3 hours
after his examination vide MLC from the ID-card found in his
worn clothes as Deepak Bansal. He filed DAR before the
Tribunal as per conclusion of investigation. He exhibited the
copy of DAR consisting of final report and the copies of other
documents available on record as Ex.RW1/A (collectively). He
was examined, cross-examined and was discharged.
8.2 Respondent no.1 & 2 have further examined Dr.
Pawan Kumar, Resident Doctor, Indraprastha Apollo Hospital,
New Delhi as R1W2. He in gist has deposed that in year 2019, he
was working as Medical Officer at Sri Balaji Action Medical
Institute, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. On 05.02.2019, he was on
Deepak Bansal vs. Raghav Jain & Ors.
MACT No.662/2019 Page No.8 of 33
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.15
16:41:40 +0530
emergency duty and road traffic accident case was brought in
their hospital at about 8:00 pm. He examined the said patient
vide MLC Ex.R1W2/A bearing his signature at point A.
Thereafter, the PCR people came and they disclosed the identity
of the patient as Deepak Bansal which he then wrote upon the
earlier entry of unknown in the coloumn of name of the patient in
the MLC. At the time when patient was brought to the hospital,
he was unconscious, however, as far as he remember, he regained
consciousness after some time. He was examined, cross-
examined and was discharged.
FINAL ARGUMENTS/SUBMISSIONS/CONTENTIONS
9.1 Submissions/contentions of the petitioner side are
that the petitioner side has positively proved that the incident
took place due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent
no.01. The injured was pursuing Engineer course at the time of
incident. Due to injuries sustained in the incident, he has
suffered loss of studies and financial loss. Award may be passed
by this Tribunal as per entitlement/claim of applicant/claimant.
9.2 Submissions/contentions of the respondent no.01 &
02 are that the petitioner(s)/claimant(s) has/have failed to prove
that incident took place with their vehicle. Vehicle of the
respondent no.1 & 2 has been falsely implicated in the present
case. Eye witness is a planted witness. Petitioner side has also
failed to prove the income of the injured. Ld. Counsels for
respondent no.1 & 2 have also relied upon the judgment of
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in matter of "New India
Assurance Company Limited vs. Harsh Mishra & Ors." MAC.
App.592/2011 decided on 29.06.2015 in support of their
contentions. With these main submissions/contentions, the
Deepak Bansal vs. Raghav Jain & Ors.
MACT No.662/2019 Page No.9 of 33
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.15
16:41:43 +0530
respondent no.03 has prayed for dismissal of the petition.
9.3 Submissions/contentions of the respondent no.03 are
that the petitioner(s)/claimant(s) has/have failed to prove that
incident took place with vehicle in question or due to rash and
negligent driving of respondent no.1. Petitioner side has also
failed to prove the income of the injured. The injured has not
suffered any loss of studies. He has also not suffered any loss of
income and functional disability. With these main
submissions/contentions, the respondent no.03 has prayed for
dismissal of the petition.
ANALYSIS/FINDINGS ON ISSUES
Issue No.(1) : Whether the injured Deepak Bansal
suffered injuries in the accident that took place on
05.02.2019 at about 7:25pm due to rash and negligent
driving of vehicle bearing registration number
DL2CAY2296 by respondent no.1 Sh. Raghav Jain,
being owned by respondent no.2 and insured with
respondent no.3? OPP.
10.1 Before adverting to the facts of the present petition
for deciding the above issue, at the very outset, it would be
apposite to note here that the procedure followed by an accident
claim tribunal is similar to what is followed by a civil Court. In
civil matters the facts are required to be established by way of
preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of
evidence or beyond reasonable doubt as is required in a criminal
prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is not as heavy
as it is in a criminal case and in a claim petition under The Motor
Vehicles Act, this burden is even lesser than a civil case.
Reference in this regard can be made to the prepositions of law
laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of "Bimla
Deepak Bansal vs. Raghav Jain & Ors.
MACT No.662/2019 Page No.10 of 33
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.15
16:41:46 +0530
Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and
Ors." reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the
subsequent judgments in the case of "Parmeshwari Vs. Amir
Chand and Ors." 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of
2011) and "Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. &
Ors.", 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 etc.
10.2 Now keeping in mind the aforesaid legal
principle/preposition for decision of the present issue, this
Tribunal has gone through the testimony of the witnesses and
entire material available on record. This Tribunal has also given
thoughtful consideration to arguments addressed by Ld. Counsels
for the parties.
10.3 Petitioner/injured and PW-2 in gist have deposed
that on 05.02.2019 at about 7:25 pm, petitioner was hit by
vehicle bearing registration no. DL2CAY2296 driven by
respondent no.1 from back side. Respondent no.1 was driving the
said vehicle in rash and negligent manner. Respondent no.1 tried
to escape from the place of incident but public gathered at the
spot stopped his car. PW-2 has deposed that thereafter respondent
no.1 agreed to take petitioner/injured to hospital.
Petitioner/injured was shifted in rear seat of the said vehicle and
respondent no.1 started his vehicle towards Sri Balaji Action
Hospital. The respondent no.1 threw him at infront of Balaji
Action Hospital and fled away. Petitioner/injured has admitted in
his cross-examination that he was crossing the road when
incident happened. There is no zebra crossing at the spot where
he was crossing the road. As far as contention of respondent no.1
& 2 that their vehicle was not involved in the incident is
concerned, in the opinion of this Tribunal, the deposition of
Deepak Bansal vs. Raghav Jain & Ors.
MACT No.662/2019 Page No.11 of 33
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.15
16:41:48 +0530
injures and PW-2 as to involvement of vehicle in question cannot
be doubted since no reason could be furnished for false
implication of the respondent no.1 and their vehicle. The
petitioner/injured has also deposed in his cross-examination that
he has faint memory of the offending vehicle being of black
colour with last 04 digits being 2296. In given circumstances, the
contention of respondent no.1 & 2 that their vehicle was not
involved in the incident is liable to be rejected. As far as the issue
of the place of incident in FIR registered FIR being mentioned as
in front of Balaji Action Hospital is concerned, R1W1 has
cleared in his deposition that the FIR in question was registered
on the basis of DD entry No. 38A and during investigation it was
revealed that the incident is the victim of the incident reported
vide DD No. 37A with place of incident being near Apsara
Banquet Hall, Rohtak Road, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. So, the
contention of respondent no.1 & 2 qua the respondent no.1 and
their vehicle in question being falsely implicated are liable to be
rejected.
10.4 Now, proceeding further qua aspect of manner of
incident, petitioner/injured has admitted in his cross-examination
that there is no zebra crossing available at the place of incident to
cross the road. Perusal of the site plan which is part of DAR
reveals that the incident happened at right side of the road. The
road in question is a main road divided by divider. It has also
come on record that there is one zebra crossing and metro station
nearby to cross the road. There can be no doubt that the driver of
the offending vehicle should have been vigilant or attentive but at
the same time, it cannot be lost sight of fact that the duty was
also upon the petitioner/claimant not to cross the road at a point
Deepak Bansal vs. Raghav Jain & Ors.
MACT No.662/2019 Page No.12 of 33
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.15 16:41:50
+0530
where it is meant not to be crossed. A Pedestrian crossing the
road cannot claim any specific precedence and responsibility for
accident has to be shared by such pedestrian along with the driver
of the offending vehicle. Reliance can be place upon the decision
of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in matter of New India
Assurance Company Limited & Ors vs. Sunit Devi & Ors. MAC
App. 609/2013/409/2014 decided on 31.10.2022 on the said
issue/aspect.
10.5 So, in the given circumstances, it cannot be said that
the driver of the offending vehicle/respondent no.1 was solely
responsible for the incident in question. In the opinion of this
Tribunal, the petitioner/claimant has also contributed to the
incident in question. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, issue
no.1 is partly decided in favour of the petitioner/claimant and is
partly decided in favour of respondents. Petitioner/claimant as
well as driver of the offending vehicle are held liable for the
incident in the ratio of 10:90.
Issue No.(2) : whether the petitioner is entitled to
compensation, if yes, at what amount and from whom?
OPP
11.1 The petitioner is certainly entitled for compensation
in view of decision of above issue. Before proceeding further to
decide the present issue, it would be apposite to encapsulate the
law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its guiding
lamp post judgment for ascertaining just compensation in road
vehicular injury cases.
11.2 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its division
bench decision in matter of "Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors."
(2011) 1 SCC 343 has held : -
Deepak Bansal vs. Raghav Jain & Ors.
MACT No.662/2019 Page No.13 of 33
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.15
16:41:57 +0530
"General principles relating to compensation in injury cases
4. The provision of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for
short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means
that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and
adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the
accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the
loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do
so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The Court or
tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and
exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though
some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its
consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be
compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which
he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be
compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to
enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but
for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to
earn or could have earned. ( See C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T.
Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376, R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest
Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs.
Willoughby - 1970 AC 467).
5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal
injury cases are the following :
Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines,
transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would
have made had he not been injured, comprising :
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of
the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life
(shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded
only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of
injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating
the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted
under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (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. 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
Deepak Bansal vs. Raghav Jain & Ors.
MACT No.662/2019 Page No.14 of 33
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.15
16:41:59 +0530
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. Decision of this
Court and 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. Assessment of future loss of
earnings due to permanent disability.
6. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform
an activity in the manner considered normal for a human-being.
Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of
use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the
period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the
maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to
remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary
disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of
the body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at
the end of the period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent
disability can be either partial or total. Partial permanent
disability refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties
and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident,
though he is able to perform some of them and is still able to
engage in some gainful activity. Total permanent disability
refers to a person's inability to perform any avocation or
employment related activities as a result of the accident. The
permanent disabilities that may arise from motor accidents
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 (`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.
7. 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
Deepak Bansal vs. Raghav Jain & Ors.
MACT No.662/2019 Page No.15 of 33
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.15
16:42:02 +0530
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%.
8. 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, percentage of loss of earning capacity,
arising from a permanent disability will be different from the
percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly
assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of
permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of
earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced
show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is
45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases,
equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to
the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in
award of either too low or too high a compensation. What
requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the
permanently 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 terns 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 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) SCALE 298 and Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National
Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567).
9. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is
any permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent
disability. This means that the tribunal should consider and
decide with reference to the evidence: (i) whether the
disablement is permanent or temporary; (ii) if the disablement is
permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or
permanent partial disablement, (iii) if the disablement
percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then
the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of
the entire body, that is the permanent disability suffered by the
person. If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent
disability then there is no question of proceeding further and
Deepak Bansal vs. Raghav Jain & Ors.
MACT No.662/2019 Page No.16 of 33
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.15
16:42:05 +0530
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.
10. 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 ability (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. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is
amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement
may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a
carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be
hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry.
On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government
service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of
employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could
perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of
earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or
carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but
far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any
compensation under the head of `loss of future earnings', if the
claimant continues in government service, though he may be
awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a
consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant
may be continued in service, but may not found suitable for
discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was
earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore
be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser
emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award
under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of
the reduced earning capacity. It may be noted that when
compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning
capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%), the need to
award compensation separately under the head of loss of
amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a
Deepak Bansal vs. Raghav Jain & Ors.
MACT No.662/2019 Page signed
Digitally No.17 ofby
33
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.15
16:42:08 +0530
result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded
under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life,
as otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of
compensation. Be that as it may."
11.3 In view of the above law laid down by Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India, in routine injury cases, award needs to
be passed only under heads of medical expenses, loss of earning
during treatment period and damages for pain, suffering and
trauma. In cases of serious injuries, where there is specific
medical evidence corroborating the claim/evidence of the
claimant, award additionally needs to be passed under the heads
of loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability
suffered, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (including
loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. The
assessment of future medical expenses would depend upon
specific medical evidence/advise for further treatment and costs
thereof. The determination of damages on account of pain and
suffering, loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life would
depend upon the age of victim, nature of
injury(ies)/deprivation/disability suffered by victim and the effect
thereof on life of claimant. The process would involve
determination/assessment of lump-sum amounts under those
heads. In case of assessment of loss of future earnings on
account of permanent disability, the Tribunal needs to first
ascertain whether the disability noted/assessed by the medical
board is temporary or permanent in nature. If the disability is
permanent in nature, then whether it is a total permanent
disablement or partial permanent disablement. If the disablement
has been referred/expressed in percentage terms, in reference to
any specific limb then the effect of such disablement of the limb
Deepak Bansal vs. Raghav Jain & Ors.
MACT No.662/2019 Page No.18 of 33
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.15
16:42:10 +0530
on the function of entire body. Once, the permanent disability is
ascertained, then the Tribunal needs to determine whether such
permanent disability has affected or will affect the earning
capacity of the claimant. To ascertain same, the Tribunal needs
to ascertain the avocation, profession and nature of work of the
claimant before the incident. The Tribunal also needs to
ascertain his age and then needs to ascertain what activities the
claimant could carry on in spite of permanent disability and what
he could not do as result of same. The Tribunal then also needs
to ascertain whether the claimant is totality disabled from earning
any kind of livelihood or whether in spite of the permanent
disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on activities
and functions which he was carrying on earlier or whether the
claimant is prevented or restricted from discharging his previous
activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser
scale of activities and functions to earn or can continue to earn
his livelihood despite permanent disability suffered. After
ascertaining the functional disability vide above process, then
Tribunal needs to workout the loss of earning capacity per month.
The Tribunal is thereafter required to workout loss of earning
capacity per annum. An appropriate multiplier needs to be
ascertained as per judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in matter of "Sarla Verma Vs. DTC" 2009 ACJ 1298 SC
according to age of the injured/victim. The total loss of earning
capacity then needs to be worked out multiplying appropriate
multiplier ascertained with ascertained annual loss of earning
capacity. This is a case where permanent disability is claimed
and compensation is also demanded qua future loss of earnings
on account of permanent disability, hence, this Tribunal now
Deepak Bansal vs. Raghav Jain & Ors.
MACT No.662/2019 Page No.19 of 33
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.15
16:42:13 +0530
proceeds further step by step to decide the compensation/award
under different heads applicable to the present matter in light of
above preposition.
DETERMINATION OF INJURIES AND DURATION OF
TREATMENT
11.4 It would be appropriate to first ascertain the nature
of injuries suffered by the injured/claimant and duration of
treatment as they need to be kept in mind while ascertaining the
compensation under different heads applicable. As per discharge
summary Ex.CW1/B, injured has suffered head injury with
polytrauma with compound transverse fracture distal end shaft of
left femur. He was admitted in Sri Balaji Action Medical
Institute on 05.02.2019 and was discharged on 22.02.2019
DETERMINATION OF AGE OF CLAIMANT/INJURED &
MULTIPLIER
11.5 The age of the claimant/injured would also be an
essential consideration for grant of just compensation under
different heads applicable in the present matter, so claimant's age
also needs to be ascertained first. As per Aadhar Card of the
injured available on record, date of birth of the injured is
16.07.1998 and the incident took place on 05.02.2019, so the
injured/petitioner is taken to be 21 years of age at the time of
incident/accident. Since, he falls in age bracket of 21 to 25
years, so, multiplier applicable to this case would be 18.
DETERMINATION OF EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION
11.6 Petitioner has exhibited his educational qualification
documents as Ex.CW1/D. As per his educational qualification
documents, injured was pursing Electronics & communication
Engineering, therefore, his education is taken as matriculate at
Deepak Bansal vs. Raghav Jain & Ors.
MACT No.662/2019 Page No.20 of 33
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.15
16:42:15 +0530
the time of incident.
DETERMINATION OF MEDICAL EXPENSES
11.7 The petitioner has filed treatment records as
Ex.CW1/C on record. Original medical bills placed on record by
the petitioner and paid by him comes out to be of
Rs.1,40,598.07/-. Hence, injured/petitioner is entitled for a sum
of Rs.1,40,598/- (after rounding off Rs.1,40,598.07) on account
of medical bills/expenses. Accordingly, petitioner is awarded
Rs.1,40,598/- on account of medical expenses.
AWARD TOWARDS FUTURE TREATMENT
11.8 Petitioner has not claimed any amount required for
future treatment. Petitioner has also not filed any
document/medical evidence on record to show that petitioner
requires any future treatment, hence, petitioner is not entitled for
any amount under this head.
PAIN & SUFFERINGS
11.9 A particular amount cannot be fixed of pain and
sufferings applicable to all cases as it varies from case to case.
Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that since the petitioner
has received serious injuries, therefore, petitioner must have
suffered acute pain and sufferings owing to the said injuries.
Considering the nature of injuries, duration of the treatment of
the petitioner in the hospital and the disability(ies) suffered by
the injured/petitioner as mentioned in the disability certificate,
this Tribunal hereby grant compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-
towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner.
DETERMINATION OF INCOME OF
INJURED/PETITIONER
11.10(i) The income of injured/petitioner has to be assessed
Deepak Bansal vs. Raghav Jain & Ors.
MACT No.662/2019 Page No.21 of 33
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.15
16:42:18 +0530
on the basis of chart available in Minimum Wages Act of a
Matriculate person of State of Government of NCT of Delhi.
The minimum wages for a Matriculate person of State of
Government of NCT of Delhi on the date of accident i.e.
05.02.2019 were Rs.16,962/-.
11.10(ii) Accordingly, the monthly income of the injured
needs to be considered as Rs.16,962/- per month on the date of
accident.
DETERMINATION OF LOSS OF INCOME DURING
TREATMENT PERIOD
11.11 Considering the nature of injuries and duration of
the treatment of the injured/petitioner, this Tribunal is of the
opinion that injured/petitioner must have not been able to work
for about 06 months. Accordingly, this Tribunal hereby grant
compensation of sum of Rs.1,01,772/- (Rs.16,962/- x 06) towards
loss of income during treatment period.
DETERMINATION OF LOSS OF FUTURE EARNINGS
11.12 This Tribunal has received the disability certificate
of the petitioner from Guru Gobind Singh Government Hospital,
Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi. In the disability certificate, it has
been specifically mentioned that the petitioner has suffered 07%
permanent disability.
ASSESSMENT OF FUNCTIONAL DISABILITY
11.13 The injured/petitioner has claimed that the disability
suffered by him would result in a great functional disability. The
same would hamper his career progress. The permanent disability
suffered by injured as per disability certificate received in this
matter is 4% locomotor disability and 3% in the form of hearing
loss. The disabilities suffered by injured are minor one and in the
Deepak Bansal vs. Raghav Jain & Ors.
MACT No.662/2019 Page No.22 of 33
Digitally signed
by HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.15
16:42:20 +0530
opinion of this Tribunal would not result in any significant
functional disability in career of engineer of the injured, however,
they would have certainly some effect in his life and carrier. The
functional disability of petitioner is therefore, considered to be as
03% in total.
DETERMINATION OF FUTURE PROSPECTS APPLICABLE
11.14 The injured was aged less than 40 years at the time
of incident and had no permanent job, so the future
prospects/benefits applicable to the present case would be 40%.
ASSESSMENT/DETERMINATION OF ENHANCED
MONTHLY INCOME
11.15 As has already been held, income of injured as
Rs.16,962/- would be applicable in this case and an addition of
40% needs to be made qua future prospects. Accordingly, the
monthly income of the injured needs to be taken as Rs. 23,747/-
(after rounding off Rs.23,746.8/-)(Rs.16,962/- + Rs.6784.8/-
which is 40% of Rs.16,962/-).
LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY/LOSS OF FUTURE
EARNING
11.16 The total loss of earning capacity/loss of future
earning would come out to be Rs.1,53,881/- (rounding off
Rs.1,53,880.56/-) (Rs.23,747/-x 12 x 18 x 3/100). Hence, so
awarded.
AWARD TOWARDS LOSS OF AMENITIES OF LIFE
11.17 Considering the age of the injured, the nature of
injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner, the disability
certificate of claimant/injured, the duration of treatment of
claimant/injured and the fact that the permanent disability
Deepak Bansal vs. Raghav Jain & Ors.
MACT No.662/2019 Page No.23 of 33
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.15
16:42:23 +0530
suffered by claimant/injured may hamper to some extent in
driving vehicles, climbing, sports activities etc., this Tribunal
hereby grant compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of loss of
amenities of life.
AWARD TOWARDS LOSS OF EXPECTATION OF LIFE
11.18 Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the
injured/petitioner, duration of his treatment and disability(ies)
suffered, this Tribunal hereby grant compensation of Rs.50,000/-
on account of loss of expectation of life.
AWARD QUA SPECIAL DIET
11.19 Though, there is no cogent evidence on record of
money spent by the petitioner upon special diet, yet considering
the nature of injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner and
duration of treatment in the hospitals, this Tribunal is of the
opinion that petitioner must have spent some money under this
head. Hence, this Tribunal hereby grant compensation of
Rs.20,000/- towards expenses incurred on special diet.
AWARD TOWARDS ATTENDANT CHARGES
11.20 Though, there is no cogent evidence on record for
the money spent by the petitioner upon attendant, yet considering
the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner and the duration
of the treatment of the petitioner in the hospital, this Tribunal is
of the opinion that petitioner must have spent some money under
this head also. Hence, this Tribunal hereby grant compensation
of Rs.20,000/- towards attendant charges.
AWARD QUA CONVEYANCE
11.21 Petitioner has exhibited conveyance bills in the form
of Ex.CW1/H. Total conveyance bills come out to be
Rs.3991.49/-. Hence, injured/petitioner is entitled for a sum of
Deepak Bansal vs. Raghav Jain & Ors.
MACT No.662/2019 Page No.24 of 33
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.15
16:42:26 +0530
Rs. 3992/- (after rounding off Rs.3991.49) towards expenses
incurred on conveyance.
DETERMINATION OF LOSS OF STUDIES
11.22 A particular amount cannot be fixed of loss of
studies applicable to all cases as it varies from case to case. It
was revealed by injured during final arguments that though he
could not take exams in 4th semester, however, he completed his
course within time. So, there has not been grave loss of studies,
however, he must have suffered some loss of studies as a
consequence of having received such grievous injuries which
must have prevented him from studying for some time.
Considering same, petitioner is granted compensation of
Rs.40,000/- towards loss of studies.
11.23 IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THIS
TRIBUNAL AWARD THE COMPENSATION AS
TABULATED HEREIN BELOW : -
S.No Heads of Compensation Amount
.
1. Reimbursement of medical Rs.1,40,598/-
expenses
2. Compensation on account of NIl future treatment
3. Pain and Suffering Rs.2,00,000/-
4. Loss of income during Rs.1,01,772/-
treatment period
5. Loss of earning capacity/loss Rs.1,53,881/-
of future earning
6. Loss of amenities of life Rs.50,000/-
7. Loss of expectation of life Rs.50,000/-
8. Special diet Rs.20,000/-
9. Attendant charges Rs.20,000/-
10. Conveyance Rs.3992/-
11. Loss of Studies Rs.40,000/-
Total Rs.7,80,240/-
Deepak Bansal vs. Raghav Jain & Ors.
MACT No.662/2019 Page No.25 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.15 16:42:29
+0530
RELIEF:-
12. This Tribunal hereby pass an award of Rs.7,02,216/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Two Thousand Two Hundred and Sixteen Only) [after deducting 10% on account of contributory negligence of the injured] [Rs.7,80,240/- - Rs.78,024/-(10%)] as compensation with interest at the rate of 7% per annum including interim award, if any from the date of filing the DAR/claim petition i.e. 19.09.2019 till the date of the payment of the award amount, in favour of petitioner/claimant and against the respondents on account of their liability being joint and several.
APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY
13. As the offending vehicle was admittedly insured with the respondent no.03/Insurance company, respondent no.03/insurance company is hereby directed to deposit the award amount in favour of the petitioner(s) with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in MACT Account of this Tribunal having Account No.40711767202, CIF No.90891362578, IFSC Code - SBIN0000726, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of this award together with the interest as stated herein above under intimation to this Tribunal and under intimation to the petitioner(s)/claimant(s)/ applicant(s). In case of any delay, it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of delay. MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE' (MCTAP) 14.1 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No.842/2003 Deepak Bansal vs. Raghav Jain & Ors.
MACT No.662/2019 Page No.26 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.15
16:42:32 +0530
titled as "Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. " has formulated MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme) vide its order dated 07.12.2018 which was made effective from 01.01.2019. The State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi is directed to disburse the amount in accordance with MACAD formulated by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. 14.2 Keeping in mind the guidelines laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the respondent no.03/insurance company is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs.7,02,216/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Two Thousand Two Hundred and Sixteen Only) as stated herein above with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in the MACT Account of this Tribunal having Account No.40711767202 CIF No.90891362578, IFSC Code -SBIN0000726, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in favour the petitioner(s)/applicant(s)/claimant(s) as stated herein above.
14.3 Out of the total award amount, Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts Branch, Delhi is directed to release/disburse the amount of Rs.2,02,216/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Two Thousand Two Hundred and Sixteen Only) immediately to the injured/petitioner.
14.4 Manager, SBI Tis Hazari Delhi is directed to release Rs.2,02,216/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Two Thousand Two Hundred and Sixteen Only) in the MACT account of petitioner bearing No. 41874357280 maintained with SBI, Plot No. 182, Avtar Enclave, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, IFSC Code: SBIN0071000 as mentioned/directed hereinafter in tabulated form. 14.5 The rest of the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and interest shall be kept in equal monthly FDR's of Rs.20,000/- each for the Deepak Bansal vs. Raghav Jain & Ors.
MACT No.662/2019 Page No.27 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.05.15 16:42:35 +0530
period of 25 months of principal amount and for further months dividing the interest by Rs.20,000/-. The remainder, if any, of said division shall be added in the last FDR. All FDRs shall be numbered from 1st to last and shall be released from 1st to last in each consecutive month with interest accumulated in the MACT account of petitioner. Money shall be withdrawn through withdrawal slip only.
14.6 The following conditions shall be adhered to by State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts Branch, Delhi with respect to the fixed deposits : -
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) 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(s).
(c) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the MACT bank account of the claimant
(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(e) 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 card (s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(f) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) 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(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(g) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause
(g) above.
14.7 In accordance with the orders dated 08.02.2019 Deepak Bansal vs. Raghav Jain & Ors.
MACT No.662/2019 Page No.28 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.05.15 16:42:41 +0530
passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 in "Rajesh Tyagi and others Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors." , Mr. Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager has been appointed as Nodal Officer of State Bank of India having Phone No.022- 22741336/9414048606 and e mail ID [email protected]. In case of any assistance or non compliance, the aforesaid Nodal Officer may be contacted. A copy of this order be sent by e- mail to the aforesaid Nodal Officer of the aforesaid bank by the Ahlmad of the Court immediately in accordance with the directions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as given in the orders dated 07.12.2018. The Nodal Officer of the bank shall ensure the disbursement of the award amount within three weeks of the receipt of the e-mail as mentioned in the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
15. The respondent no.03/Insurance Company shall deposit the award amount with the account of this Tribunal within 45 days. Nazir of this Court shall prepare a separate file regarding the status of deposition/non-deposition of the award amount by the respondent(s) after making necessary entry on CIS on 11.07.2025.
16. A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of cost through email.
17. Ahlmad staff is directed to send the copy of award to Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022[(Directions at serial nos.39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)].
18. Ahlmad staff is also directed to e-mail an Deepak Bansal vs. Raghav Jain & Ors.
MACT No.662/2019 Page No.29 of 33 Digitally signed HARVINDER by HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.05.15 16:42:44 +0530
authenticated copy of the award to the insurer as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors." decided on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall also e-email an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court Complex Branch for information.
19. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Tribunal on 15th of May, 2025 (HARVINDER SINGH) District Judge-cum-PO:MACT-01, West/THC/Delhi/15.05.2025 Deepak Bansal vs. Raghav Jain & Ors.
MACT No.662/2019 Page No.30 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.05.15 16:42:47 +0530 FORM-XVI
SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE
1. Date of accident : 05.02.2019
2. Name of the injured : Deepak Bansal
3. Age of the injured : 16.07.1998
4. Occupation of the injured: Not proved
5. Income of the injured : Rs.16,962/- per month
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken : 05.02.2019 to 26.03.2021
8. Period of Hospitalization : w.e.f. 05.02.2019 to 22.02.2019 and w.e.f.
30.12.2020 to 02.01.2021
9. Whether any permanent disability ?
If yes, give details : 07%
10. Computation of Compensation S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss :-
(I) Expenditure on Rs.1,40,598/-
treatment
(ii) Expenditure on Rs.3992/-
conveyance
(iii) Expenditure on special Rs.20,000/-
diet
(iv) Cost of Rs.20,000/-
nursing/attendant
(v) Loss of earning capacity Rs.1,53,881/-
(vi) Loss of Income Rs.1,01,772/-
(loss of earning during
treatment period)
(vii) Any other loss which Rs.40,000/- (Loss of
may require any special studies)
treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his
life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss :-
(i) Compensation for NIL
mental and physical
shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.2,00,000/-
Deepak Bansal vs. Raghav Jain & Ors.MACT No.662/2019 Page No.31 of 33 Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.05.15 16:42:51 +0530
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.50,000/-
(iv) Dis-figuration NA
(v) Loss of marriage NA
prospects
(vi) Loss of earning, NA
inconvenience,
hardships,
disappointment,
frustration, mental
stress, dejectment and
unhappiness in future
life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity :-
(i) Percentage of disability 07% assessed and nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or Rs.50,000/-
loss of expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of 03% earning capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - As above (Income x% Earning Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL Rs.7,02,216/- (Rupees COMPENSATION Seven Lakhs Two Thousand Two Hundred and Sixteen Only) [after deducting 10% on account of contributory negligence of the injured] [Rs.7,80,240/- -
Rs.78,024/-(10%)]
15. INTEREST AWARDED 7% per annum
16. Interest amount up to Rs. 2,77,999/-
the date of award (w.e.f. 19.08.2019 to 15.05.2025 i.e. 5 years 7 months and 26 days)
17. Total amount including Rs.9,80,215/-
Deepak Bansal vs. Raghav Jain & Ors.
MACT No.662/2019 Page No.32 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.15
16:42:54 +0530
interest (Rs.7,02,216/- +
Rs.2,77,999/-)
18. Award amount released Rs.2,02,216/-
19. Award amount kept in Rs.5,00,000/- along with
FDRs interest accrued
20. Mode of disbursement Mentioned in the award
of the award amount to
the claimant (s).
21. Next date for 11.07.2025
compliance of the
award.
(HARVINDER SINGH)
District Judge-cum-PO:MACT-01, West/THC/Delhi/15.05.2025 Deepak Bansal vs. Raghav Jain & Ors.
MACT No.662/2019 Page No.33 of 33 Digitally signed HARVINDER by HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.05.15 16:42:57 +0530