Saurabh Kumar vs Raj Kumar on 29 April, 2025

[Cites 37, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Saurabh Kumar vs Raj Kumar on 29 April, 2025

IN THE COURT OF MS. SHELLY ARORA
DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
PO MACT (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI

MACT No. 868/2021
FIR no. 05/2020
PS: Tappal
U/s 279/338/427 IPC
CNR No.DLSE01- 011149-2021
Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors.

1. Saurabh Kumar
S/o Satyapal Singh
R/o R-35, Sriniwaspuri
New Delhi-110065.

...Claimant

Versus

1. Raj Kumar
S/o Kanhaiya Lal
R/o Vill. Sangrampur Khair
Khair, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh.

..... Driver / R-1

2. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation
General Manager, Tehri Kothi,
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.

..... Owner/ R-2

MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 1 of 41

Digitally signed
by SHELLY
SHELLY ARORA
ARORA Date:
2025.04.28
16:34:36 +0530
Date of accident : 05.01.2020
Date of filing of petition : 13.12.2021
Date of Decision : 29.04.2025

AWARD

1. In this case, claim petition under Section 166 and 140 M.V.
Act was filed on 13.12.2021 by Sh Saurabh Kumar (hereinafter
called the claimant) on account of injuries sustained by him in
the accident which took place on 04.01.2020 due to rash and
negligent driving of vehicle no. UP 81BL 5059 (hereinafter
referred as Offending Vehicle), driven by Sh. Raj Kumar
(hereinafter called R-1) and owned by UPSRTC (hereinafter
referred as R-2).

BRIEF FACTS AS ALLEGED IN THE PETITION:
2. On 05.01.2020, when injured was coming from Jatari
Village to Suraj Mal, travelling by his motorcycle bearing Reg.
No. UP 81DL 5059 alongwith his cousin brother, suddenly UP
Roadways bus bearing Reg. no. UP 81BT 0436, being driven
speedily in a zig zag manner rammed into the motorcycle on
Alighar Palwal Road near Jattri Bamba, Kasba Road, on account
of which the motorcycle toppled and both of them fell on the
road and sustained injuries. FIR was registered by brother of one
of the injured Gaurav next day after the accident. Investigation
was undertaken. Statement of witnesses were recorded.
Mechanical Inspection of the vehicle was got done. Upon
conclusion of investigation, R-1, as driver of the offending
vehicle was charge sheeted for having caused harm upon the
person of injured due to speedy and rash driving on a public way.

MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 2 of 41
Proceedings:
3. All the respondents appeared in response to notice of claim
petition and filed their replies respectively.

4. In WS filed on behalf of R-1 & R-2, it is stated that the
accident took place on account of negligence of injured who was
driving his motorbike recklessly and rammed into the bus head
on whereas the bus was being plied at a slow speed, adhering to
the traffic norms and therefore, there is no negligence on the part
of driver of the bus. Other general defences were taken.
Issues:
5. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were
framed vide order dated 23.11.2022:

1) Whether this Tribunal has territorial
jurisdiction to deal with the present petition?
2) Whether the injured suffered grievous injury
in a road traffic accident on 05.01.2020 due to
rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. UP
81BL 5059, being driven by R-1, owned by
R-2? OPP
3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any
compensation, if so, to what extent and from
whom ? OPP.
4) Relief.
Evidence:
6. Matter was then listed for evidence. Injured Saurabh
Kumar tendered his evidentiary affidavit as Ex.PW1/A. He relied
upon following documents:
(i) MLC- Ex.PW1/1
(ii) Charge Sheet-Ex.PW1/2
(iii) Discharge Summary of Kailash Hospital-Ex.PW1/3
(iv) Discharge Summary of AIIMS Hospital-Ex.PW1/4

MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 3 of 41
(v) OPD Card -Ex.PW1/5
(vi) Medical Bills-Ex.PW1/6
(vii) Disability Certificate-Ex.PW1/7
(viii) Educational document-Ex.PW1/8
(ix) ID card of coaching centers-Ex.PW1/9
(x) Rent Agreement-Ex.PW1/10

PW-1 was cross examined by counsel for R-1 & 2.
7. Petitioner Evidence was closed. Matter was then listed for
Respondent Evidence.
8. R1W1 tendered her evidentiary affidavit as Ex.R1W1/A.
He relied upon his DL as Ex.R1W1/1. He was cross examined by
counsel for claimant.
9. Respondent Evidence was closed. Matter was then listed
for Final Arguments.
Final Arguments:
10. Final Arguments were advanced by counsel for claimant as
well as by counsel for respondent. Counsel for claimant argued
that the accident happened solely on account of the negligence on
the part of the driver of the offending vehicle as deposed by the
eye witness/ injured examined on behalf of the claimant. He has
argued that there is no dispute about the involvement or
identification of the offending vehicle and the driver thereof. It is
argued that the injured has suffered 100% permanent disability as
per the medical certificate having rendered completely blind on
account of injuries sustained in the accident. It is stated that the
injured was earning about Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per month
as Home Tutor and was also preparing for competitive
examination in aspiration of government job.

MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 4 of 41
11. Counsel for UPSRTC also advanced arguments and stated
that the accident allegedly happened in UP and no documents
have been filed by the claimant in respect of his residence or any
work area in Delhi and therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to
try the present case. He has also argued that the accident occurred
due to sole negligence of the motorcyclist of the bikers and
therefore, respondent are not liable to pay any compensation. The
compensation claim has also been termed to be exorbitant.

Discussion:
ISSUE NO.1
1) Whether this Tribunal has territorial jurisdiction to deal with
the present petition?

12. The aspect of Territorial Jurisdiction is governed by
Section 166(2) of MV Act as per which the application under
section 166(1) can be filed at the option of the claimant, to the
Claim Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which:

(i). the accident occurred,
(ii). within whose jurisdiction the claimant/petitioner
resides,
(iii) within whose jurisdiction the claimant/petitioner
carries on his business, or
(iv) within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the
defendant resides.

13. To appreciate the legal position on this issue, it is pertinent
to refer to paragraph 14 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Malati Sardar v. National Insurance Company Limited,
(2016) 3 SCC 43:

"14. The provision in question, in the present case, is a

MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 5 of 41
benevolent provisions for the victims of accidents of
negligent driving. The provision for territorial jurisdiction
has to be interpreted consistent with the object of
facilitating remedies for the victims of accidents. Hyper
technical approach in such matters can hardly be
appreciated.

15. As per Aadhar Card Ex.PW1/11, the address of claimant is
mentioned as Sriniwaspuri, Delhi. In view thereof as claimant's
address falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Tribunal and
hence, it is held that this court has territorial jurisdiction to
adjudicate upon this claim for compensation.

ISSUE NO.2
2) Whether the injured suffered grievous injury
in a road traffic accident on 05.01.2020 due to
rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. UP
81BL 5059, being driven by R-1, owned by
R-2? OPP

16. It is well settled that the proceedings before the Claims
Tribunal are in the nature of inquiry and the finding of rash and
negligent driving by driver of the offending vehicle is to be
returned only at the touch stone of preponderance of
probabilities. {support drawn from the cases of Bimla Devi &
Ors. Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors, (2009) 13
SC 530, Kaushnumma Begum and others v/s New India
Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC, and from the
case of National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pushpa Rana cited as
2009 ACJ 287}.
17. PW-1 Saurabh Kumar deposed that he along with his
cousin brother were travelling from Gaddi Surajmal to Kasab
Jattari on 05.01.2020 at about 06.30 PM by accidental vehicle

MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 6 of 41
when a UP Roadways bus bearing Reg. No. UP 81BT0436
coming from the opposite side, being driven by R-1, speedily and
rashly, rammed into the motorcycle forcefully because of which
bikers fell down on the road and sustained injuries. He deposed
that he rushed to Kailash Hospital and was then referred to
AIIMS Trauma Center due to his critical condition where MLC
was prepared. He also deposed that he remained hospitalized for
about 3 weeks in AIIMS Trauma Center post accident. During
cross examination by counsel for the respondent, he stated that
the motorcycle was being plied at a speed of 50-60 kilometer per
hour and that he was wearing helmet at the time of accident. He
stated that he became unconscious after the accident whereas
registration number of the bus was noted down by his brother. He
stated that he could not read the registration number of offending
vehicle at the time of accident. Counsel for the respondents has
chosen not to cross examine the witness on the aspect of mode
and manner of the accident. There is not even a suggestion given
to the injured that the motorcycle was being driven recklessly or
speedily or that the accident happened on account of sole
negligence on the part of injured person.
18. R-1 Rajkumar tendered evidentiary affidavit and deposed
that he has been employed with R-1 with an untainted record and
is an experienced driver. He also stated that the bus was being
driven by him in a slow speed as there were many potholes on
the road rather injured persons were reckless in driving, probably
intoxicated and rammed into the bus head on, causing the
accident. He asserted that there was no negligence on his part. He
also asserted that the injured was driving without helmet and was
not following the traffic rules. During cross examination, he

MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 7 of 41
declined the suggestion that he was driving rashly and
negligently at the time of accident, however, admitted that
criminal proceedings are pending against him. He declined the
suggestion that he had fled from the scene of accident. He also
stated that he had informed about the accident to the officials of
R-2 but did not file any complaint in the police station regarding
the accident.
19. Neither the accident nor involvement of the offending
vehicle is disputed in this matter. FIR was registered next day
after the accident by brother of injured as both the bikers
sustained serious injuries after the accident. It is mentioned in the
FIR that the bus was being driven recklessly without adhering to
the lane discipline in a zig zag manner because of which it
rammed into the motorcycle coming from the opposite side. The
site plan forming part of charge sheet shows that the bus literally
transgressed into the lane meant for opposite traffic and crashed
into the motorcycle. The Mechanical Inspection Report of bus
also corroborates that damaged with bumper and grill whereas
the bike was heavily damaged due to collision. It is evident that
not only R-1 was speedily driving, he also did not adhere to the
lane discipline. Speedy Transgression of lane leading to accident
with vehicle plying in correct lane itself is reflective of reckless
driving. There is nothing on record to suggest that the
motorcyclist could have averted the accident or that they flouted
the traffic rules or were intoxicated and thus had no control over
their vehicle. It is evident that the accident occurred on account
of speedy and rash driving on the part of driver of the offending
vehicle. Issue No. 1 is hereby decided in favor of the petitioners
and against the respondents.

MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 8 of 41
ISSUE NO. 3
"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}

20. 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)
for compensation in respect of such death or permanent
disablement shall be disposed of in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter X.
.

21. "....Money cannot renew a physical frame that has been MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 9 of 41 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.

22. 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.

23. Section 168 MV Act puts an obligation over Tribunal to assess 'just' compensation with the object of putting the sufferer in the same position as nearly as possible as he would have been if he had not sustained the wrong. It is worthwhile to reproduce certain observations made by Karnataka High Court in the case of K. Narasimha Murthy v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd ILR 2004 KAR 2471 as referred and relied in the case of Rekha Jain Vs. National Insurance Company Limited Civil Appeal No. 5370- 5372 of 2013 which enumerates the milestones to be kept in MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 10 of 41 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."

24. 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 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 MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 11 of 41 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"

25. 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...."

26. 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 in mind by the Court in assessing compensation in personal injury cases."

27. 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 MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 12 of 41 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).

28. 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).

29. 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)}.

30. 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.

MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 13 of 41

31. 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."

32. 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 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, MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 14 of 41 discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life."

33. 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).

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 MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 15 of 41 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.

PECUNIARY DAMAGES

34. 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:

(A) Expenditure on Medical Treatment:

(i) Medical bills have been filed on record as Ex.PW1/6 (colly) for a total sum of Rs. 75,000/-. Sundry / miscellaneous expenses cannot be ruled out during the admission in the hospital and subsequently also considering the nature of injury and disability.

Accordingly, injured is awarded Rs. 95,000/- (Rs. 75,000/- + Rs. 20,000/-) as actual amount spent on the treatment of injuries sustained by him.

(B) Expenditure on Conveyance:

(i) The claimant has not filed any bills towards conveyance.

However, he suffered traumatic injury to the eyes resulting in loss of vision in both eyes, along with a fracture in the left leg. He was initially admitted to Kailash Hospital and later shifted to MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 16 of 41 AIIMS Trauma Center, Delhi, where he remained hospitalized from 05.01.2020 to 26.01.2020. Given the serious nature of the injuries and the need for travel between different hospitals along with a support person, it is evident that considerable conveyance expenses would have been incurred. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded under the head of conveyance expenditure.

(i) The claimant has not filed any bills towards special diet.

However, he sustained traumatic injuries to the eyes resulting in complete loss of vision in both eyes, along with a fracture in the left leg. Such serious injuries, particularly those involving surgical intervention and recovery from fractures, typically require a special and nutritious diet to aid in healing and maintain overall health. Considering the nature of the injuries a sum of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded under the head of special diet.

(D) Expenditure towards services of Attendant:

(i) The claimant has not submitted any bills towards attendant charges. However, considering the nature of injury and disability permanent disability with loss of vision in both eyes, it is evident that the claimant would have been completely dependent on another person for mobility and daily care during the recovery period. The severity of the injuries would have necessitated constant support and supervision, especially during hospitalization and post-discharge care. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that attendant services were required.

Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded under the head of MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 17 of 41 attendant charges.

(E) Loss of earning during the period of treatment:

(i) The claimant deposed that he was working as a home tutor and earning between Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per month.

However, any document has not been filed to support this income. He further deposed that he was pursuing his B.Sc. degree and preparing for various government job examinations, for which he was attending coaching classes in Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi. In support of his statement, he has filed a copy of his coaching institute ID card as Ex.PW1/9. He further stated that he had been residing in Delhi for the past four years and relied upon copy of Rent Agreement (Ex.PW1/10) to support thereof. As per his Aadhaar Card, his residence is shown as Sriniwaspuri, Delhi. To prove educational background, a copy of High School Marksheet has been filed as Ex.PW1/8. His income is thus assessed as per minimum wages for matriculate person as on the date of accident in the State of NCT of Delhi which was Rs. 17,991/-.

(ii) The claimant sustained grievous injuries, including a fracture of the left leg and traumatic injury to the eyes resulting in complete loss of vision in both eyes. He underwent surgical treatment and required long-term care and assistance. Given the severity of the injuries and the impact on his mobility and vision, it is reasonable to conclude that he would have been unable to work or continue his coaching and tutoring activities for at least six months following the accident. Hence, loss of income is assessed for a period of six months.

MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 18 of 41 Thus the income is calculated to be Rs. 17991 x 6 = Rs.1,07,946/-

(F) Loss of future earning

(i) It is settled that a person is required to be compensated not just for the physical injury but also for the loss he has suffered as well as the loss which he might entail for the rest of his life on account of those injuries which he sustained in the accident. This necessarily means that he is required to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy normal amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the injury, his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (Support drawn from the judgment titled as C. K. Subramania Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair (1969) 3 SCC 64.

(ii) Claimant has suffered traumatic injury in both of his eyes resulting complete loss of vision. A Unique Disability ID (Ex.PW1/7) which certifies him as 100% visually disabled placed on record. No challenge has been laid to the Disability Assessment by any of the contesting counsels.

(iii) Before proceeding further, it is important to understand as to what disability means and also types thereof. This aspect has been delved into by Hon'ble SC in Raj Kumar (supra):

"8. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a human being. Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 19 of 41 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."

(iv) 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 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 MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 20 of 41 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 impede 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.

(v) 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.

(vi) 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% MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 21 of 41 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 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 MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 22 of 41 decide with reference to the evidence:

(i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary;

(ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement;

(iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is, the permanent disability suffered by the person.

If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity.

13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood.

19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above:

(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.

(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 23 of 41 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."

(vii) 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-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.

(viii) 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 MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 24 of 41 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.

(ix) 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.

(x) The injured suffered a traumatic injury resulting in complete loss of vision in both eyes, as corroborated by the Unique Disability ID (Ex.PW1/7) which certifies him as 100% visually disabled. He also sustained a fracture in the left leg, further impairing his mobility. He has testified that he was working as a home tutor earning between Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per month and was simultaneously pursuing his B.Sc. while preparing for competitive government exams, as shown by his coaching center ID (Ex.PW/9). The complete loss of vision has rendered him unfit not only to continue his existing work as a tutor, which relies heavily on reading, writing, and student interaction, but also significantly impairs his future employment prospects, particularly in government services which generally require minimum visual standards. It is noted that there are MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 25 of 41 advance technological support available which nonetheless allow visually impaired to read, write and pursue further higher studies.

Although physical disability of injured has been assessed as 100% in terms of visual loss, hoping that injured is able to overcome the setback of life, at the same time, considering his young age, educational background, and the nature of his occupation and aspirations, the functional disability with respect to whole body and future earning capacity is assessed to be at least 80%, as the loss of vision has substantially and permanently incapacitated him from performing any work suited to his qualifications and previous income profile.

(F1) Future Prospect:

(i) It is also held therein that future prospect (as laid down in the well considered judgment of National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680) shall be payable, not only in fatal cases but also in the case of permanent disability. The observations made in the said case as relevant to the context are reproduced hereunder:

"6. The principle consistently followed by this court in assessing motor vehicle compensation claims, is to place the victim in as near a position as she or he was in before the accident, with other compensatory directions for loss of amenities and other payments. These general principles have been stated and reiterated in several decisions.

7. Two questions arise for consideration: one, whether in cases of permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor accident, the claimant can seek, apart from compensation for future loss of income, amounts for future Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. [Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683. This court referred to the pronouncements in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 551; Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka (2009) 6 SCC 1; Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan (2009) 13 SCC 422; Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343. Govind Yadav spelt out these principles by MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 26 of 41 stating that the courts should, "in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily. If the victim of the accident suffers permanent disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the loss of earning and his inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident." These decisions were also followed in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar Mohanty, (2018) 3 SCC 686. prospects too; and two, the extent of disability. On the first question, the High Court no doubt, is technically correct in holding that Pranay Sethi involved assessment of compensation in a case where the victim died. However, it went wrong in saying that later, the three-judge bench decision in Jagdish was not binding, but rather that the subsequent decision in Anant10 to the extent that it did not award compensation for future prospects, was binding. This court is of the opinion that there was no justification for the High Court to have read the previous rulings of this court, to exclude the possibility of compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement. Such a narrow reading of Pranay Sethi11 is illogical, because it denies altogether the possibility of the living victim progressing further in life in accident cases - and admits such possibility of future prospects, in case of the victim's death. .

.

(ii) Hon'ble Supreme Court further discussed several cases involving permanent disability and observed as under:

20. Courts should not adopt a stereotypical or myopic approach, but instead, view the matter taking into account the realities of life, both in the assessment of the extent of disabilities, and compensation under various heads.

....What is to be seen, as emphasized by decision after decision, is the impact of the injury upon the income generating capacity of the victim. The loss of a limb (a leg or arm) and its severity on that account is to be judged in relation to the profession, vocation or business of the victim; there cannot be a blind arithmetic formula for ready application. On an overview of the principles outlined in the previous decisions, it is apparent that the income generating capacity of the appellant was undoubtedly severely affected".

(iii) PW-1 has filed his Aadhar Card as Ex.PW1/11 on record as MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 27 of 41 per which his date of birth is 16.05.1999, therefore, his age as on the date of accident was about 20 years & 11 months. Since the injured was below the age of 40 years (at the time of accident) and was employed on a fixed salary, thus as laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the percentage towards future prospect is taken to be @ 40 % upon application of category of ''self- employed or on a fixed salary''.

(F2) Multiplier:

(i) The Multiplier Method was coined by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 3483 of 2008, decided on 15.04.2009 to ascertain the future loss of income in relation to the age of the deceased, in order to bring about the uniformity and consistency in determination of compensation payable in fatal and serious injuries matters. Relevant observations with respect to the multiplier method in the abovementioned case read as under:

"The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed-up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last."

(ii) The standard multiplier method was directed to be applied not only to ascertain the loss of dependancy in fatal accident case but also to determine future loss of earning in serious disability matters as well {as laid in the case of Raj Kumar (supra)}. In a recent Judgment of Pappu Deo Yadav vs Naresh Kumar, AIR MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 28 of 41 2020 SUPREME COURT 4424, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India relied upon and reiterated the principles laid in various judgments passed by it in the case of Sr. Antony @ Antony Swamy Vs. Managing Director KSRTC, Civil Appeal No. 2551 of 2018 and held that stereotypical or myopic approach must be avoided and pragmatic reality of life must be taken into account to determine the impact of extent of disability upon the income generated capacity of victim.

(iii) The income of the injured per annum as determined upon appreciation of evidence, thus, forms the multiplicand. A table of multiplier with reference to the age was laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The appropriate multiplier, applicable in this case would be 18 (for age upto 25 years).

(iv) In view of the above discussion of law, the calculation under future loss of income in the present case is as under:

(a) Annual income (Rs. 17,991/- x 12) = Rs.2,15,892/-

(b) Future prospect (40% of Rs.2,15,892/-) = Rs. 86,357/-

__________________

(d) Thus, Multiplicand = Rs.3,02,249/-

(e) Hence, the 'Total Loss of Future Income' shall be :-

Percentage of Functional Disability (Multiplicand X Multiplier).

80% (Rs.3,02,249/- X 18)                      =         Rs. 43,52,386/-


MACT No. 868/2021        Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr.       Page No. 29 of 41
                       NON-PECUNIARY LOSS

35. 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.

(i) Regarding non-pecuniary loss, following was stated in Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, Vol. 12 (page 446):

"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 his age and any unusual deprivation he may suffer, is reflected in the actual amount of the award.

(ii) In Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC 667, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 30 of 41 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.

(iii). 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.

(iv) 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. The whole idea behind assessment for damages for compensation is to put the claimant in the same position in so far MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 31 of 41 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:

(A) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma on account of injuries:

(i) 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.

(ii) Certain factors were also laid down for consideration in the case of The Divisional Controller, KSRTC vs Mahadeva Shetty And Anr Appeal (Civil) 5453 of 2003 further relied in the case of MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 32 of 41 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)]

(iii) 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 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 MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 33 of 41 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).

(iv) The nature of injury and resulting disability must have completely shattered the life of the injured. His dreams of building a stable future through education and a government job have been abruptly cut short. He has lost not only his present source of income but also all future opportunities in his chosen field. For a young person with ambition and hope, the sudden loss of independence and career possibilities is deeply traumatic. The impact on his mental and emotional well-being is severe and permanent. Considering the extent of his disability, the emotional suffering, and the irreversible loss of a self-reliant life, an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- is awarded as compensation for pain, suffering, and trauma.

B. Loss of marriage prospect:

(i) In addition to losing his education and job opportunities, the injury has also badly affected the chances of injured person of getting marriage. He is still young, but because of his complete loss of vision, it will be very difficult for him to find a life partner. In our society, people usually look for someone who can earn and take care of a family, and with this kind of permanent disability, many families may not agree to a match. He will also be dependent on others for the rest of his life, which makes it even harder. Keeping all this in mind, coupled with emotional and psychological pain that comes with it, an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- is awarded to the claimant for loss of marriage prospects.

MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 34 of 41 (C) Loss of amenities of life:

(i) 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. Injured has been rendered incapacitated to enjoy the beauty of outside world. He would not be able to see his loved ones. Loss of vision would obviously impact his free unhindered mobility as well. It is evident that he would not be able to live a wholesome life and enjoy the amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries suffered by him. An amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities.

36. 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 :                     As       Rs. 95,000/-
             discussed above.

             (ii) Expenditure on Conveyance : As                         Rs. 50,000/-
             discussed above.
             (iii) Expenditure on special diet : As                       Rs.50,000/-
             discussed above.

             (iv) Cost of nursing / attendant :                           Rs.50,000/-

             (v) Loss of income :                                      Rs.1,07,946/-

             (vi) Cost of         artificial       limbs        (if         NA
             applicable) :

MACT No. 868/2021          Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr.         Page No. 35 of 41
              (iii) Percentage of loss of earning                           80%
             capacity in relation to disability: As
             already discuss above.

             (vii) Any other loss / expenditure :                          NA
             (viii) Loss of future income:                         Rs. 43,52,386/-

 2.          Non-Pecuniary Loss :
             (i) Damages for pain, suffering and                    Rs. 10,00,000/-
             trauma on account of injuries:
             (ii) Loss of amenities of life                           Rs. 2,00,000/-
             (iv) Disfiguration :                                          NA
             (v) Loss of marriage prospects :                       Rs. 5,00,000/-
             (vi) Future medical expenses                                  NA
             (vii) Loss of expectation of life                             NA
             Total Compensation                                      Rs.64,05,332/-
             Deduction, if any,                                            Nil
             Total Compensation after deduction                      Rs.64,05,332/-
             Interest                                              As          directed
                                                                   below

37. It may be noted that in the judgment of Ram Charan & Ors. Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., MAC Appeal no. 433/2013, decided on 18.10.2022 it was noted regarding rate of interest:

"25 to evaluate the submission made by counsel for the applicants, it is imperative to examine the guiding principles for the grant of interest. In Abati Bezbaruah Vs. Geological Survey of India, (2003) 3 SCC 148, the following was held while interpreting section 171 of the MV Act, 1988:-

Three decisions were cited before us by Mr. A. P. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, in support of his contentions. No ratio has been laid down in any of the decisions in regard to the rate of interest and the rate of interest was awarded on the amount of compensation as a matter of judicial discretion. The rate of interest must be MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 36 of 41 just and reasonable depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and taking all relevant factors including inflation, change of economy, policy being adopted by Reserve Bank of India from time to time, how long the case is pending, permanent injuries suffered by the victim, enormity of suffering, loss of future income, loss of enjoyment of life etc. into consideration. No rate of interest is fixed under Section 171 of the MV Act 1988. Varying rates of interest are being awarded by Tribunals, High Courts and the Supreme Court. Interest can be granted even if a claimant does not specifically plead for the same as it is consequential in the eye of the law. Interest is compensation for forbearance or detention of money and that interest being awarded to a party only for being kept out of the money which ought to have been paid to him.

No principle could be deduced nor can any rate of interest be fixed to have a general application in motor accident provision under Section 171 giving discretion to the Tribunal in such matter. In other matters, awarding of interest depends upon the statutory provisions mercantile usage and doctrine of equity. Neither Sec. 34 CPC nor Sec. 4-A(3) of Workmen's Compensation Act are applicable in the matter of fixing are of interest in a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. The courts have awarded the interest at different rates depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, in my opinion, there cannot be any hard and fast rule in awarding interest and the award of interest is solely on the discretion of the Tribunal of the High Court as indicated above."

38. Having regard to the prevailing rate of interest and the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, including in the case of Erudhaya Priya vs State Express Transport decided on 27 July, 2020, Civil Appeal Nos. 2811-2812 OF 2020 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.8495-8496 of 2018], which is three Judges Bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, such interest @ 9% per annum is deemed fit and accordingly granted in the present case.

39. The total compensation is Rs.64,05,332/- which shall be payable to the claimant along with to simple interest @9% p.a. MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 37 of 41 from the date of filing of DAR till actual realization of Award amount/compensation.

LIABILITY

40. As discussed above, R-1 driver drove the vehicle rashly and negligently which caused the accident. R-2 /UPSRTC owned the offending vehicle. Accordingly, the entire liability to pay compensation would be upon R-1 driver as well as R-2 which had authorised and deputed R-1 to drive the vehicle on the date of accident. Therefore, such principal award amount/compensation will be payable by the R-1/ driver & R-2/ UPSRTC offending vehicle with simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of petition till actual realization. (If there is any order regarding excluding of interest for specific period same be complied at the time of calculation of award amount).

41. The award amount shall be deposited with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi by way of RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in account of MACT FUND PARKING, A/c No. 00000042706870765 IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir along with calculation of interest and to the Counsel for the petitioner.

MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE' (MCTAP).

42. This court is in receipt of the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors whereby the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has formulated MACAD(Motor MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 38 of 41 Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme) which has been made effective from 01.01.2019. The said orders dated 07.12.2018 also mentions that 21 banks including State Bank of India is one of such banks which are to adhere to MACAD. The State Bank of India, Saket Courts, Delhi is directed to disburse the amount in accordance with MACAD formulated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.

Release of Amount

43. Out of total settlement amount Rs. Rs. 50,00,000/- along with proportionate (to the principle amount) up to date interest is kept in form of monthly FDR of Rs. 20,000/- each. Remaining amount along with proportionate up to date interest shall be released in his bank account near his place of residence.

44. The following directions are also given to the bank for compliance:

(a) 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.

(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.

(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.

(d) 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.

(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.

(f) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 39 of 41 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.

(g) 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.

SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD.

1 Date of accident 05.01.2020 2 Name of injured Saurabh Kumar 3 Age of the injured 20 years and 11 months.

4 Occupation of the Not proved injured 5 Income of the injured Minimum wages, applicable for matriculate person in NCT of Delhi at the time of accident.

6 Nature injury Grievous injury and disability with respect to complete loss of vision.

7 Medical treatment taken As per record.

by the injured:

8 Period of As per record.

Hospitalization MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 40 of 41 9 Whether any permanent Grievous injury disability?

45. Copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost. The copy of award be sent to Ld. Secretary, DLSA and Ld. Concerned Criminal Court.

Announced in the open court on 29.04.2025 Shelly Arora PO (MACT)-02, SE/Saket/Delhi 29.04.2025 MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 41 of 41

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

Saurabh Kumar vs Raj Kumar on 29 April, 2025