Delhi District Court
Pankaj Kumar Singh ... vs Mohd. Mohit (Go Digit Gen. Ins.) on 21 May, 2026
IN THE TRIBUNAL OF PRESIDING OFFICER MACT-02: CENTRAL DISTRICT: TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI. PRESIDED OVER BY Ms. POOJA AGGARWAL, DHJS MACT No. 704/24 UID/CNR No. DL-CT01-015112-2024 In Respect of FIR No. 354/24 U/S: 279/337 IPC PS Sadar Bazar Pankaj Kumar Singh S/o Mr. Keshav Singh R/o Village Pachokhar, Siwan, Bihar-841245. Also at:- Khasra No. 9/13, 9/14, Gali No. 20, Kotla Vihar, Phase-II, Tilangpur, Kotla, Delhi-110043. (Through Ld. Counsel Ms. Babita Tyagi) .....Petitioner Versus 1. Mohd. Mohit (Driver) S/o Mr. Mohd. Tayab R/o H.No. 149, Nihal Vihar, Nangloi Jat, Nangloi, Delhi-41. 2. Vishal (Owner) S/o Mr. Pooran Lal R/o H.No. RZC-174, Nihal Vihar, Nangloi Jat, Nangloi, Delhi-41. MACT No. 704/24 In Respect of FIR No. 354/24 PS Sadar Bazar Page No. 1 of 36 Pankaj Kumar Singh v Mohd. Mohit & Anr. Digitally signed by POOJA DOD: 21.05.2026 AGGARWAL POOJA Date: AGGARWAL 2026.05.21 16:07:40 +0530 3. Go Digit General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer) Office Address:- 5th Floor, B Wing, IFCI Tower, 61 Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019. (Through Ld. Counsel Mr. Sujit K. Jaiswal) .....Respondents Date of filing of DAR : 24.09.2024 Judgment reserved on : 21.05.2026 Date of Award : 21.05.2026 AWARD/JUDGMENT 1. The present Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred to as "DAR") has been filed by the Investigating Officer in respect of FIR No. 354/2024, u/s 279/337 IPC, PS Sadar Bazar regarding injuries sustained by Pankaj Kumar Singh S/o Keshav Singh (hereinafter referred to as "Petitioner/injured") due to an accident which took place on 03.04.2024, at about 2.30 P.M., at Gate of Police Colony Ahata Kidhara, Sadar Bazar Delhi, by the vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1LV-7927 (hereinafter referred to as 'Offending Vehicle') being driven by Mohd. Mohit S/o Mohd. Tayyab (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent No.1") rashly and negligently, owned by Vishal S/o Pooran Lal (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent No.2") and insured with Go Digit General Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent No.3"). 2. Vide order dated 24.09.2024, passed by the Ld. Predecessor, the DAR was directed to be treated as a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'MV Act'). MACT No. 704/24 In Respect of FIR No. 354/24 PS Sadar Bazar Page No. 2 of 36 Pankaj Kumar Singh v Mohd. Mohit & Anr. Digitally signed by DOD: 21.05.2026 POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.21 16:07:58 +0530 Brief Facts as per the DAR
3. Upon receipt of a DD on 04.04.2024 during emergency duty of 03.04.2024, the IO SI Vijay Kumar went to the place of incident with Ct. Rajveer, where it transpired that the injured had already gone to Ganga Ram Hospital, whereafter the IO went to the hospital and recorded the statement of the injured Pankaj Kumar Singh to the effect that on 03.04.2024 at about 2.30 p.m., he was on his way to Paschim Vihar and when he reached Police colony Ahata Kidara, towards Chameleon Road, a white coloured Chhota Hathi bearing registration number DL-1LV-7927, being driven in a rash and negligence manner, came from behind and hit him, resulting in the injured falling on his face on the road, sustaining on his face and leg. He further stated that he was taken to the nearby doctor i.e. Dr Naresh by an unknown person, but the doctor was not found and in the meanwhile, his brother came there and took him to Ganga Ram Hospital where he was undergoing treatment. He further stated that the driver of the Chhota Hathi also came to the hospital and stated his name to be Mohammed Mohit, and he identified him. Upon the statement of the injured, and the MLC, the present case FIR was registered under Section 279/337 IPC.Further, as per the DAR, the Petitioner sustained grievous injuries in the accident, due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, which was duly insured at the time of the accident.
Facts as per Reply/ Written Statements
4. In his reply filed on 27.05.2025, the Respondent No. 1 disputed the manner of accident as well as the site plan. It has been MACT No. 704/24 In Respect of FIR No. 354/24 PS Sadar Bazar Page No. 3 of 36 Pankaj Kumar Singh v Mohd. Mohit & Anr. Digitally signed by DOD: 21.05.2026 POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.21 16:08:07 +0530 asserted that the Respondent No.1 was driving his vehicle slowly due to a traffic jam, but the Petitioner tried to overtake his vehicle rashly and negligently very closely from the right side and he (injured) himself hit the vehicle. It has also been asserted that at the time of accident, the Petitioner had earphones in his ear and was not alert or focused on the road traffic. It has also been asserted that the Respondent No. 1 had himself taken the injured/Petitioner to the hospital, but the false FIR was registered. It has also been asserted that the vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1LV-7927 was duly insured with the Respondent No.3/ insurance company from 04.08.2023 to mid night 03.08.2024, and that the Respondent No.1 has valid driving license which was valid up to 20.12.2031.
5. No reply/written statement to the DAR was filed by Respondent No. 2, who also stopped appearing after 24.12.2024.
6. The Respondent No.3/ Insurance Company filed its offer for settlement cum reply wherein they admitted that the vehicle No. DL-1LV-7927 was insured with it at the relevant time in the name of the Respondent No. 3 and also offered compensation to the injured of a sum of ₹1,13,700/- in respect of the expenditure on treatment, conveyance, special diet, loss of income and loss of amenities.
Issues
7. Vide order dated 01.04.2025, the following limited issues were MACT No. 704/24 In Respect of FIR No. 354/24 PS Sadar Bazar Page No. 4 of 36 Pankaj Kumar Singh v Mohd. Mohit & Anr. Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA DOD: 21.05.2026 AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.21 16:08:16 +0530 framed by the Ld. Predecessor:-
(1) To what amount of compensation, the petitioner who suffered grievous injuries in an accident dated 03.04.2024 at about 02.30 PM involving the offending vehicle bearing registration no.
DL-1LV-7927, driven by the respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, owned by the respondent no.2 and insured with the respondent no. 3, is entitled to and from whom? OPP
2. Relief.
Evidence of the Petitioner
8. PW1/Petitioner tendered his evidence by way of affidavit i.e. Ex. PW-1/A, wherein he testified on similar lines as the facts stated in the DAR in respect of the factum and manner of the accident, as also the factum of registration of the present case FIR. He also testified that at the time of the accident, he was aged about 24 years, earning about ₹25,000/- per month by giving coaching door-to-door. He also testified that he had sustained grievous injuries i.e. left leg fracture, mouth injured (2 teeth broken), upper jaw fracture and injuries all over his body, and that his MLC bearing No. 5981/2024 dated 03.04.2024 was prepared at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Rajendra Place, New Delhi. He also testified that he had spent ₹1,00,000/- on his treatment, ₹50,000/- on conveyance, ₹50,000/- on special diet and ₹60,000/- for attendant, and has testified that he was entitled to a compensation of ₹50 Lakhs. He also relied upon the following documents :-
S.No. Description of Documents Exhibit/Mark
1. Complete set of DAR Ex. PW1/1 (Colly)
2. Original Discharge Ex. PW1/2 Summary issued by Sir MACT No. 704/24 In Respect of FIR No. 354/24 PS Sadar Bazar Page No. 5 of 36 Pankaj Kumar Singh v Mohd. Mohit & Anr. Digitally signed by POOJA DOD: 21.05.2026 POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.21 16:08:32 +0530 Ganga Ram Hospital
3. Original Treatment Papers Ex PW1/3 (Colly)
4. Original Medical Bills Ex. PW1/4 (Colly)
5. Copy of his Aadhaar Card Ex. PW1/5
6. Copy of his Educational Ex. PW1/6 (Colly) Documents
7. Disability Certificate Ex. PW1/7
9. He was duly cross-examined on behalf of the Respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company.
Evidence of the Respondents
10. The Respondent No.3 / Insurance Company chose not to lead any evidence, and none appeared on behalf of the remaining Respondents to lead any evidence.
11.Dr. Sanjay Yadav, Senior Consultant, Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital was examined as CW-1, who testified to the effect that on 11.03.2025, Pankaj Kumar Singh was examined by the Disability Examination Board constituted by Medical Superintendent of their hospital, and he was the Incharge of that Board. He also testified that the patient, who was a follow up case of injury on the left ankle was found having 30% permanent disability in relation to his Left Lower Limb, and proved the disability certificate bearing No. 2125 dated 11.03.2025 (already Ex.PW1/7) identifying his signatures thereon. He also produced a copy of calculation sheet of Pankaj Kumar Singh which was prepared at the time of assessment of his disability by the physiotherapist i.e. Ex.CW1/1. He further MACT No. 704/24 In Respect of FIR No. 354/24 PS Sadar Bazar Page No. 6 of 36 Pankaj Kumar Singh v Mohd. Mohit & Anr. Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA DOD: 21.05.2026 AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.21 16:08:37 +0530 testified that the injury on the left ankle was reflected in the MLC i.e. ExCW1/2 as well as in the discharge summary (already Ex.PW1/2) of the patient. He further testified that the injury on the left ankle resulted in the 30% permanent disability on the left lower limb and the patient is able to walk slowly on plane surfaces and slope, he can climb stairs and stand on the affected leg with the support, he can partially bear the weight on the affected side when squatting on the floor and can partially sit crossed legged. He was duly cross-examined on behalf of the Respondent No.3/ Insurance Company.
Final Arguments and Issue Wise Findings
12. Final arguments were advanced on behalf of the Petitioner and the Respondent No.3/Insurance Company by their respective counsels, which have been carefully considered along with the evidence on record. After careful consideration of the entire evidence, the issue wise findings are as under:
Issue No. 1: To what amount of compensation, the petitioner who suffered grievous injuries in an accident dated 03.04.2024 at about 02.30 PM involving the offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1LV-7927, driven by the respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, owned by the respondent no.2 and insured with the respondent no. 3, is entitled to and from whom? OPP; and Issue no.2: Relief.
13. The onus to prove this issue was upon the Petitioner. At the very outset, it is noted that the factum of the accident of the Petitioner having occurred on 03.04.2024, at about 02.30 PM, involving the offending vehicle bearing registration no.
MACT No. 704/24In Respect of FIR No. 354/24 PS Sadar Bazar Page No. 7 of 36 Pankaj Kumar Singh v Mohd. Mohit & Anr.
DOD: 21.05.2026 POOJA
Digitally signed by
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.21
16:08:44 +0530
DL-1LV-7927, due to rash and negligent driving of the Respondent No.1 is not in dispute, as the Respondent No.3/ Insurance Company have not disputed the same, and filed their offer.
14. Though the Respondent No.1 sought to controvert the manner of the accident, and raised a plea as to the absence of any rashness and negligence on his part in the reply filed by him, for reasons best known to him, he did not step into the witness box nor produced any witness to prove the same. On the other hand, the testimony of the Petitioner is clear and cogent as to the accident having taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, as the offending vehicle being driven by the Respondent No.1 had hit him while he was walking as a pedestrian, with a great force, which testimony could not be discredited through cross-examination.
15. Further, the Respondent No. 1 has also been charge-sheeted by the investigating agency for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279/338 IPC, after concluding the investigation including as to the aspect of manner of the accident. Therefore, the filing of the chargesheet against the Respondent No.1 also indicates existence of rashness and negligence while driving the offending vehicle. (Ref: National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa Rana, 2009 ACJ 287 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepak Goel & Ors, 2014 (2) TAC 846 (Del)).
MACT No. 704/24
In Respect of FIR No. 354/24 PS Sadar Bazar Page No. 8 of 36
Pankaj Kumar Singh v Mohd. Mohit & Anr. Digitally signed
by POOJA
DOD: 21.05.2026 POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.21
16:08:52 +0530
16. It is further noted that the factum of the Petitioner having sustained grievous injury in the accident also stands proved. As per the testimony of the Petitioner/injured, he had sustained injuries in the accident and was taken to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Rajendra Place, New Delhi, where his MLC No. 5981/2024 dated 03.04.2024 was prepared and he remained admitted from 03.04.2024 to 04.04.2024. The MLC No. 5981/2024 dated 03.04.2024 issued by Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, (forming part of the DAR) reflects the alleged history of road traffic accident reflecting various injuries and the nature of injury has been opined to be grievous. Even the discharge summary issued by Sir Ganga Ram Hospital dated 04.04.2024 i.e. Ex PW1/2 inter-alia reflects laceration on the lower lip left side, and deep laceration over left ankle above medial malleolus, which proves the factum of the Petitioner having sustained grievous injuries having been diagnosed with post traumatic contused laceration over lower lip with avulsed mucosal flap maxillary dento-alveollar fracture anterior table with tooth loss (central incisor).
17. Even as per the disability certificate i.e. Ex PW1/7 issued by Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, the Petitioner has 30% permanent physical impairment in relation to his left lower limb, which is non-progressive and not likely to improve. No reason has been brought on record to disbelieve either the MLC or even the discharge summary Ex. PW1/2, as well as the disability certificate i.e. Ex. PW1/7, which on the scale of preponderance of probabilities, sufficiently proves that the accident in question MACT No. 704/24 In Respect of FIR No. 354/24 PS Sadar Bazar Page No. 9 of 36 Pankaj Kumar Singh v Mohd. Mohit & Anr. Digitally signed by POOJA DOD: 21.05.2026 POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2026.05.21 16:08:57 +0530 resulted in grievous injury to the Petitioner.
Quantum of compensation
18. Since the Petitioner sustained grievous injuries as a result of the accident in question, he is entitled to be compensated for the same and Section 168 of the MV Act enjoins upon this Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable.
19. The guiding principles for assessment of "just and reasonable compensation" has been enumerated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Anjali v. Lokendra Rathod, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1683, wherein it has been observed that: -
"The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "MV Act") gives paramount importance to the concept of 'just and fair' compensation. It is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims or their families. Section 168 of the MV Act deals with the concept of 'just compensation' which ought to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability. Although such determination can never be arithmetically exact or perfect, an endeavor should be made by the Court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of the amount claimed by the applicant/s. In Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, this Court has laid down as under:
16."Just compensation" is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit."
(Emphasis supplied)
20. It is a settled proposition of law that in cases where the Petitioner has suffered injuries due to the accident, the grant of compensation is under two broad categories, i.e. Pecuniary as MACT No. 704/24 In Respect of FIR No. 354/24 PS Sadar Bazar Page No. 10 of 36 Digitally signed Pankaj Kumar Singh v Mohd. Mohit & Anr. POOJA by POOJA AGGARWAL DOD: 21.05.2026 AGGARWAL Date:
2026.05.21 16:09:30 +0530 well as non-pecuniary damages. The two categories of damages has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 551, which has also been reiterated in Atul Tiwari v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2025) 3 SCC 6 as under:
"9. Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (I) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit;
(iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened;
(iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life."
(Emphasis supplied)
21. The principles guiding such grant of compensation have been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 34, as under:
"General principles relating to compensation in injury cases
5. 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 MACT No. 704/24 In Respect of FIR No. 354/24 PS Sadar Bazar Page No. 11 of 36 Pankaj Kumar Singh v Mohd. Mohit & Anr.Digitally signed
DOD: 21.05.2026 POOJA by POOJA
AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.21
16:09:40 +0530
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).
6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following :
Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(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."
(Emphasis supplied)
22. Further in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413, it has been held that:
" It is impossible to equate human suffering and personal deprivation with money. However, this is what the Act enjoins upon the courts to do. The court has to make a judicious attempt to award damages, so as to compensate the claimant for the loss suffered by the victim. On the one hand, the compensation should not be assessed very conservatively, but on the other hand, compensation should also not be assessed in so liberal a fashion so as to make it a bounty to the claimant. The court while assessing the compensation should have regard to the degree of deprivation and the loss caused by such deprivation. Such compensation is what is termed as just compensation. The compensation or damages assessed for personal injuries should be substantial to compensate the injured for the deprivation suffered by the injured throughout his/her life. They should not be just token damages."
(Emphasis supplied) MACT No. 704/24 In Respect of FIR No. 354/24 PS Sadar Bazar Page No. 12 of 36 Pankaj Kumar Singh v Mohd. Mohit & Anr.
DOD: 21.05.2026 Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.21 16:09:54 +0530
23. In view of the above legal propositions, the amount of compensation shall be computed.
A: Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
24. In respect of his treatment/ medicine, hospitalization, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure, the Petitioner has testified in his evidence affidavit i.e. Ex PW1/A, to the effect that he has incurred an expense of ₹1 Lakh on his medical treatment, ₹50,000/- towards conveyance expenses, ₹50,000/- towards special diet and ₹60,000/- towards attendant.
25. In support of his treatment/ medicine expenses, the Petitioner has relied upon the medical bills i.e. Ex. PW-1/4(Colly) for the total sum of ₹1,19,289/-, and no reason has been brought on record to disbelieve the said medical bills as placed on record. Thus, the Petitioner is awarded a sum of ₹1,19,289/- which is the total of the bills produced by him on record towards treatment/ medicine expenses.
26. In respect of expenses towards nourishing food, it is noted that the Petitioner has testified in Ex PW-1/A that he had incurred an expense of about ₹50,000/- but did not bring on record any document to substantiate his claim of such expenses. He led no further evidence to prove the same. Be that as it may, it can not be overlooked that in view of the injuries sustained by the MACT No. 704/24 In Respect of FIR No. 354/24 PS Sadar Bazar Page No. 13 of 36 Pankaj Kumar Singh v Mohd. Mohit & Anr.
DOD: 21.05.2026 POOJA Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
+0530 2026.05.21 16:10:01 Petitioner and considering that his treatment continued till atleast 15.12.2025, as reflected in the prescription issued by Chawla Dental & Implant Clinic forming part of Ex PW1/3 (Colly), the Petitioner would have incurred expenses on special diet for his recovery including protein rich diet. That being so, a sum of ₹30,000/- is awarded to the Petitioner under the head of special diet.
27. In respect of expenses towards conveyance/transport, PW1/ Petitioner has testified in Ex. PW1/A that he had incurred an expense of about ₹50,000/- but did not bring on record any receipt to prove the same. Be that as it may, it can not be ignored that in view of the nature of injuries sustained by the Petitioner which resulted in 30% disability in relation to his left lower limb, he is likely to have incurred expenses towards conveyance/transport. That being so, a sum of ₹25,000/- is awarded to the Petitioner under the head of transportation/ conveyance.
28. In respect of the misc. expenses/attendant, PW1/Petitioner has testified as to having incurred an expense of ₹60,000/- towards attendant, but he led no further evidence to prove the same. Be that as it may, considering his nature of injuries and the period of treatment, he is likely to have incurred some misc. expenses. That being so, a sum of ₹20,000/- is awarded to the Petitioner under the head of Misc Expenses/ Attendant.
MACT No. 704/24
In Respect of FIR No. 354/24 PS Sadar Bazar Page No. 14 of 36
Pankaj Kumar Singh v Mohd. Mohit & Anr. Digitally signed
by POOJA
DOD: 21.05.2026 POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.05.21
16:10:07 +0530
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
29. In respect of loss of earning during the period of treatment, it is noted that as per the medical documents on record i.e. Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex. PW1/3 (Colly), the Petitioner has remained under treatment till at least 15.12.2025, though he was discharged from the hospital after only one day, as reflected in Ex PW1/2 and also admitted by him in his cross-examination. It is also to be borne in mind that the Petitioner had sustained tooth loss and injury on his left ankle region in the form of a laceration, which led to a disability of 30% in relation to his left lower limb. In view of the nature of his injuries and treatment, he is bound to have suffered loss of income for the period of treatment, and he is entitled to be compensated for the loss of his income for the same. However, since no specific evidence has been brought on record as to the exact period of treatment, the same shall be considered to be about one month in view of the nature of injuries sustained by the Petitioner.
30. To compute the same, the quantum of monthly income of Petitioner needs to be ascertained. It is noted that as PW1, the Petitioner has testified in Ex PW-1/A that he was earning about ₹25,000/- per month by giving coaching door-to-door. However, no document has been produced by the Petitioner to corroborate his self serving testimony nor he has examined his purported students or even disclosed the name of his students. In the absence of any further evidence having been led, and MACT No. 704/24 In Respect of FIR No. 354/24 PS Sadar Bazar Page No. 15 of 36 Pankaj Kumar Singh v Mohd. Mohit & Anr. Digitally signed by POOJA DOD: 21.05.2026 POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2026.05.21 16:10:12 +0530 considering that the Petitioner has placed on record the copy of his class B.A. Part-III Examination Mark sheet reflecting his result as Pass in second division, the income of the Petitioner shall be assessed on the basis of the minimum wages, payable to a Graduate in Delhi at the time of the accident i.e. on 03.04.2024 i.e. ₹23,732/- per month. Hence, the loss of income of the Petitioner is computed to be ₹23,732/- and the Petitioner is awarded the same towards loss of income due to treatment.
31. It has been argued on behalf of the Respondent No.3/ Insurance Company during the course of final arguments that the Petitioner/ injured was a student at the time of the accident, and hence there was no loss of income. However, it is noted that the testimony of the Petitioner is clear and cogent as to him providing door to door tuitions and when cross-examined by the Ld Counsel for the Respondent No.3, he has categorically denied the suggestion as to him being only a student or as to him not giving any door to door coaching. The fact that the Petitioner has stated in the FIR that he was preparing for government jobs does not lead to any inference that he was not providing home tuitions as well, as the FIR is meant as first information of facts relevant to the commission offence, and cannot be treated to be an encyclopedia of all facts, so as to disregard the statement made on oath and tendered in evidence in the court, and which could not be discredited through any cross-examination. Thus, the argument as raised on behalf of the Respondent No.3/ Insurance Company is rejected.
MACT No. 704/24
In Respect of FIR No. 354/24 PS Sadar Bazar Page No. 16 of 36
Pankaj Kumar Singh v Mohd. Mohit & Anr. Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA
DOD: 21.05.2026 AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.21
16:10:17 +0530
32. In respect of the loss of future earnings, the Petitioner has relied upon his disability certificate i.e. Ex PW1/7 issued by Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, as per which he has 30% permanent physical impairment in relation to his left lower limb, which is non- progressive and not likely to improve and he has, inter-alia, claimed compensation on account of prospective income as well.
33. In Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 34, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has noted that:
"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.
(Emphasis supplied)
34. It is has been further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors., (2011) 1 SCC 34 that:
MACT No. 704/24In Respect of FIR No. 354/24 PS Sadar Bazar Page No. 17 of 36 Pankaj Kumar Singh v Mohd. Mohit & Anr.
DOD: 21.05.2026
Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.21
16:10:23 +0530
"9. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the Doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the same as 45% permanent disability with reference to the whole body. The extent of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of a percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole body. If there is 60% permanent disability of the right hand and 80% permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent of permanent disability with reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the body have suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to the whole body, cannot obviously exceed 100%.
10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, 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 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).
12. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent MACT No. 704/24 In Respect of FIR No. 354/24 PS Sadar Bazar Page No. 18 of 36 Pankaj Kumar Singh v Mohd. Mohit & Anr.
DOD: 21.05.2026 Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.21 16:10:28 +0530 disability. This means that the tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence:
(i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary;
(ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement,
(iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is the permanent disability suffered by the person.
If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect 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 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."
(Emphasis supplied)
35. In the present case, it is undisputed that the accident resulted in injuries, including a laceration on the left ankle of the Petitioner, as reflected in the MLC and discharge summary. However, Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company has contended that the 30% permanent physical impairment recorded in Ex. PW1/7 with respect to the Petitioner's left lower limb is exaggerated and disproportionate to the nature of injuries reflected in the medical records. It has further been argued that none of the members of the Medical Board were present at the time when MACT No. 704/24 In Respect of FIR No. 354/24 PS Sadar Bazar Page No. 19 of 36 Pankaj Kumar Singh v Mohd. Mohit & Anr.
DOD: 21.05.2026
Digitally signed by POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.21 16:10:34
+0530
the Petitioner was assessed by the physiotherapist, and therefore, the disability certificate/report stands discredited and ought not to be relied upon.
36. With respect to the aforesaid contention, it is observed that CW-1, Dr. Sanjay Yadav, was subjected to extensive cross- examination by learned counsel for Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company. Despite such cross-examination, nothing material could be elicited to suggest that the assessed disability of 30% pertaining to the left lower limb, as reflected in the disability report, was exaggerated. Further, the Respondents failed to place on record any evidence, including expert medical evidence, to establish that the laceration injury sustained on the ankle could not have resulted in the disability so assessed. Rather, during the course of cross-examination, CW-1 Dr. Sanjay Yadav acknowledged that, as per the discharge summary, the Petitioner had sustained a deep laceration on the left ankle and further clarified that although the laceration had healed at the time of examination, the same had nevertheless resulted in permanent disability. Thus, CW-1 unequivocally affirmed that the disability was a consequence of the said injury.
37. It is further noted that although CW-1 Dr. Sanjay Yadav admitted that none of the members of the Medical Board were physically present at the time when the assessment of the Petitioner was conducted by Physiotherapist Dr. Anubha, he categorically testified that the disability assessment was based upon evaluation of the range of motion and muscular power. The Respondents have failed to place on record any statutory MACT No. 704/24 In Respect of FIR No. 354/24 PS Sadar Bazar Page No. 20 of 36 Pankaj Kumar Singh v Mohd. Mohit & Anr. Digitally signed DOD: 21.05.2026 POOJA by POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2026.05.21 16:10:39 +0530 rule, guideline, or direction mandating the presence of members of the Medical Board during such assessment by a physiotherapist. In the absence of any such requirement, the mere non-presence of any member of the Medical Board at the time of assessment does not, by itself, diminish the evidentiary value or credibility of the disability report.
38. Insofar as the contention regarding exaggeration of disability by the Medical Board is concerned, it is observed that although CW-1 Dr. Sanjay Yadav admitted that the assessment proforma contained measurements pertaining to the knee and hip, he categorically denied the suggestion that such measurements were incorporated solely for the purpose of inflating the percentage of disability. He further denied the suggestions that the disability assessed by the Medical Board was highly exaggerated or that the disability certificate had been issued merely on the recommendation of the physiotherapist. Significantly, Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company did not lead any expert evidence to rebut or discredit the testimony of CW-1 Dr. Sanjay Yadav or to demonstrate that the disability assessment was improbable or medically unsustainable.
39. Accordingly, in view of the testimony of CW-1 Dr. Sanjay Yadav, the medical records placed on record by the Petitioner, and in the absence of any cogent evidence to the contrary adduced by the Respondents, on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, it stands proved that the disability suffered by the Petitioner was a direct consequence of the laceration injury sustained on the left ankle, which stands MACT No. 704/24 In Respect of FIR No. 354/24 PS Sadar Bazar Page No. 21 of 36 Pankaj Kumar Singh v Mohd. Mohit & Anr. Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA DOD: 21.05.2026 AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.21 16:10:44 +0530 duly reflected in the MLC as well as the discharge summary.
40. Be that as it may, it is duly noted that the disability report reflects 30% disability in relation to the left lower limb and not with reference to the whole body, and the Petitioner has not brought on record any further medical evidence as to the functional disability arising out of the said physical disability.
41. However, as CW-1 Dr. Sanjay Yadav has testified that the Petitioner is able to walk slowly on plane surfaces and slope, he can climb stairs and stand on the affected leg with the support, he can partially bear the weight on the affected side when squatting on the floor and can partially sit crossed legged, and further considering that the Petitioner was studying and working as a home tutor, his ability to reach students' residences for the purpose of imparting tuition is bound to have been adversely affected by the disability. That being so, the functional disability of the Petitioner is taken to be 15% in relation to the whole body.
42. To compute the loss of future income on account of permanent disability, it is noted that as the time of the accident i.e. on 03.04.2024, the injured/petitioner was aged about 24 years as his date of birth is reflected as 27.05.1999 in his Aadhaar Card i.e. ExPW1/5 as well as Secondary School Examination Marks Sheet forming part of Ex PW1/6 (Colly).
43. It is further noted that the notional income of the Petitioner has already been assessed to be ₹23,732/- per month i.e. minimum MACT No. 704/24 In Respect of FIR No. 354/24 PS Sadar Bazar Page No. 22 of 36 Pankaj Kumar Singh v Mohd. Mohit & Anr.
DOD: 21.05.2026
Digitally signed by
POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.21
16:10:48 +0530
wages payable to a Graduate in Delhi at the time of the accident i.e. on 03.04.2024. In view of the proposition laid down in Erudhaya Priya v. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 601 (citing Jagdish v. Mohan, (2018) 4 SCC 571), the Petitioner is also entitled to the grant of future prospects. Thus, in view of the judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, 40% of the established income is to be added to the monthly income towards future prospects, if the injured is aged less than 40 years. That being so, an amount of ₹9,492.8/- shall be added to the notional monthly income, and thus the monthly income inclusive of the future prospects comes to be ₹33,224.8/- and the annual income comes to be ₹3,98,697.6/-.
44. Further, as the Petitioner was aged about 24 years at the time of the accident, a multiplier of 18 shall be applicable (Ref: Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121) and therefore, the notional income of the Petitioner/ Injured comes to be ₹71,76,556.8/- (₹3,98,697.6/- x 18).
45. As the functional disability of the Petitioner has been taken to 15%, the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability caused to the Petitioner arising out of the accident comes to be ₹10,76,484/- (rounded off from ₹10,76,483.52/-) (i.e.15% of the notional income) and the Petitioner/ Injured is awarded the same.
MACT No. 704/24
In Respect of FIR No. 354/24 PS Sadar Bazar Page No. 23 of 36
Pankaj Kumar Singh v Mohd. Mohit & Anr. Digitally signed by
POOJA
DOD: 21.05.2026 POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.21
16:10:53 +0530
(iii) Future medical expenses.
46. No evidence has been brought on record by the Petitioner as to any foreseeable medical expenses arising in the future due to the injury sustained by him in the accident. Hence, no amount is awarded to him under this head.
B. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
47. In respect of the damages under this head, it is noted that the factum of the Petitioner/injured having sustained grievous injuries with 30% permanent disability in relation to his left upper limb already stands proved. Further, as per the treatment documents placed on record by the Petitioner, his treatment continued till atleast 15.12.2025. Due to the nature of injuries and considering the age of the Petitioner/injured at the time of the accident, it can safely be inferred that he must have suffered pain and trauma due to the accident. Accordingly, a lump sum amount of ₹50,000/- is granted in favour of the Petitioner towards damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
48. In the present case, as the Petitioner has sustained grievous injury in the accident resulting in 30% disability, and he has also lost two teeth, it cannot be ignored that he faces a possibility of denial of enjoyment of the simple pleasures of life as well as enjoyment of life. That being so, a sum of ₹50,000/- is awarded to the Petitioner/ Injured towards loss of amenities (including disfigurement).
MACT No. 704/24
In Respect of FIR No. 354/24 PS Sadar Bazar Page No. 24 of 36
Pankaj Kumar Singh v Mohd. Mohit & Anr. Digitally signed
DOD: 21.05.2026 POOJA by POOJA
AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.21
16:10:59 +0530
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity)
49. No evidence has been brought on record by the Petitioners to show as to whether there is any loss of expectation of life due to the injuries sustained by the Petitioner in the accident. That being so, no amount is awarded to the Petitioner under this head.
50. For the sake of convenience, the amount as awarded to the Petitioner Pankaj Kumar Singh is summarized as under:-
S. No. HEAD AMOUNT
1. Treatment / medicine expenses ₹1,19,289/-
2. Hospitalization expenses. NIL
3. Special Diet ₹30,000/-
4. Transport/conveyance and ₹45,000/-
misc expenses
5. Loss of earning during ₹23,732/-
hospitalization
6. Loss of future earnings on ₹10,76,484/-
account of permanent (Rounded off)
disability
7. Damages for pain, suffering ₹50,000/- and trauma as a consequence of the injuries
8. Loss of amenities and loss of ₹50,000/- marriage prospects.
9. Loss of expectation of life NIL TOTAL ₹13,94,505/-
51. In respect of entitlement of the Petitioner to interest on the awarded amount, it is duly noted that in the present matter is pending since 24.09.2024 and the rate of interest of fixed deposits in Nationalized banks has fluctuated several times MACT No. 704/24 In Respect of FIR No. 354/24 PS Sadar Bazar Page No. 25 of 36 Pankaj Kumar Singh v Mohd. Mohit & Anr.
DOD: 21.05.2026
Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.21
16:11:05 +0530
during the pendency of the present proceedings. Thus, in the interest of justice and keeping in view the principles discussed in order dated 21.04.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Baby Raksha & Ors, MAC APP. No. 36/2023, the Petitioner is awarded interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of DAR, that is, with effect from 24.09.2024 till the date of the award i.e. 21.05.2026, i.e. a sum of ₹1,73,442/- (rounded off from ₹1,73,441.559/-) towards interest. The amount of interim award, if any, be deducted from the above amount, if the same has already been paid to the Petitioners. Issue No. 1 is decided accordingly.
Liability
52. As already stated above, Respondent No.1 being the driver and principal tortfeasor; and Respondent No.2 being owner of the offending vehicle being vicariously liable for the acts of Respondent No.1, are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to Petitioner. However, since the offending vehicle was insured with Respondent No.3 at the time of accident and the Respondent No.3 / Insurance Company has not raised any statutory defence in denial of their liability, hence, the Respondent No.3 shall be liable to pay the compensation amount to the Petitioner. Issue No. 2 is accordingly decided.
Disbursement/ Release
53. As per the Financial Statement of Petitioner, the monthly expenses of the family are approximately ₹30,000/- to MACT No. 704/24 In Respect of FIR No. 354/24 PS Sadar Bazar Page No. 26 of 36 Pankaj Kumar Singh v Mohd. Mohit & Anr.
DOD: 21.05.2026
Digitally signed by
POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.21
16:11:11 +0530
₹35,000/- per month. Hence, while deciding the quantum and manner of disbursement of the awarded amounts, the following directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide orders dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 titled Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors. have to be borne in mind:
"(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name to be added in the saving account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimants i.e. saving bank accounts of the claimants shall be an individual saving bank account and not a joint account.
(ii) 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 claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited by the ECS in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without the permission of the court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimants. 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 claimants so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of claimants from any other branch of the bank.
(vi) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque books and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and the claimant shall produced the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court for compliance."
54. Thereafter, in Parminder Singh vs Honey Goyal, S.L.P. (C) No. 4484 OF 2020 as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 18 March, 2025 it has been further directed that:
"17. The case in hand pertains to the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. The general practice followed by the insurance companies, where the compensation is not disputed, is to deposit the same before the Tribunal. Instead of following that MACT No. 704/24 In Respect of FIR No. 354/24 PS Sadar Bazar Page No. 27 of 36 Pankaj Kumar Singh v Mohd. Mohit & Anr. Digitally signed by POOJA DOD: 21.05.2026 POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.21 16:11:15 +0530 process, a direction can always be issued to transfer the amount into the bank account(s) of the claimant(s) with intimation to the Tribunal.
17.1 For that purpose, the Tribunals at the initial stage of pleadings or at the stage of leading evidence may require the claimant(s) to furnish their bank account particulars to the Tribunal along with the requisite proof, so that at the stage of passing of the award the Tribunal may direct that the amount of compensation be transferred in the account of the claimant and if there are more than one then in their respective accounts. If there is no bank account, then they should be required to open the bank account either individually or jointly with family members only. It should also be mandated that, in case there is any change in the bank account particulars of the claimant(s) during the pendency of the claim petition they should update the same before the Tribunal. This should be ensured before passing of the final award. It may be ensured that the bank account should be in the name of the claimant(s) and if minor, through guardian(s) and in no case it should be a joint account with any person, who is not a family member. The transfer of the amount in the bank account, particulars of which have been furnished by the claimant(s), as mentioned in the award, shall be treated as satisfaction of the award. Intimation of compliance should be furnished to the Tribunal."
(Emphasis supplied)
55. In view of the same, the award amount can now be disbursed in the Savings Bank Account of the Petitioner. However, the remaining directions as passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court shall be complied with.
56. After considering the financial statement of the Petitioner Pankaj Kumar Singh, it is directed that upon realization of the awarded amount of ₹15,67,947/- (inclusive of interest), a sum of ₹3,07,947/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty Seven Only) shall be released to him immediately in his Bank Account No 44951506971, IFSC Code SBIN0000726, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts Branch, Delhi as furnished by him at the time of recording of his financial statement.
MACT No. 704/24
In Respect of FIR No. 354/24 PS Sadar Bazar Page No. 28 of 36
Pankaj Kumar Singh v Mohd. Mohit & Anr. Digitally signed by
POOJA
DOD: 21.05.2026 POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.21
16:11:20 +0530
57. The balance amount of ₹12,60,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Sixty Thousand Only) shall be put in 36 monthly fixed deposits in his name in his account as mentioned above of equal amount of ₹35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 36 months respectively, with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in his saving account maintained in the nationalized bank situated near the place of his residence.
58. The Respondent No.3 / Go Digit General Insurance Co. Ltd is directed to deposit the awarded sum of ₹15,67,947/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty Seven Only) inclusive of interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of DAR i.e. w.e.f. 24.09.2024 till the date of the award i.e. 21.05.2026 within 30 days by way of NEFT or RTGS mode directly in the MACT account of the Petitioner as mentioned in the Para No. 56 of this award under intimation to the Petitioner as well as this Tribunal failing which the said Respondent shall be liable to pay interest @ 12 % per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days. (Ref: Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @ Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.)
59. The concerned Manager of the bank of the Petitioner is directed to release the amount to the Petitioner as per the award upon completion of necessary formalities as per the rules. He/She is MACT No. 704/24 In Respect of FIR No. 354/24 PS Sadar Bazar Page No. 29 of 36 Pankaj Kumar Singh v Mohd. Mohit & Anr. Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL DOD: 21.05.2026 AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.21 16:11:25 +0530 directed to keep the amount in fixed deposits as per the directions given in the award and to send a compliance report to this court. He/She is also directed to ensure that no loan, advance or pre mature discharge is allowed on the fixed deposit without an order of this court.
60. The Petitioner is directed to provide a copy of this award to the Manager of his Bank for compliance, and a digital copy of this award be forwarded by the Ahlmad to the parties free of cost.
61. The summary of the award as per Form XV of the Annexure XIII and particulars of compliance of the Provisions of the Scheme as per Form XVII of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 as amended by the Central Motor Vehicles (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022, are also annexed with this Award as Annexure A and B respectively, and shall form a part of this award.
62. Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the 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)].
63. Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 06.01.2021 in MAC.APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., regarding digitization of the records.
MACT No. 704/24
In Respect of FIR No. 354/24 PS Sadar Bazar Page No. 30 of 36
Pankaj Kumar Singh v Mohd. Mohit & Anr. Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA
DOD: 21.05.2026 AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.21
16:11:30 +0530
64. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an 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. on 16.03.2021 and also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information and compliance.
65. Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
66. This file be consigned to the Record Room after necessary compliance and a separate file be prepared for compliance report and put up the same on 01.07.2026.
Announced in the Open Court Digitally signed
by POOJA
today i.e. on 21st May 2026 POOJA
AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL
Date:
2026.05.21
16:11:36 +0530
(POOJA AGGARWAL)
Presiding Officer, MACT-02 (Central) Tis Hazari, Delhi(K) MACT No. 704/24 In Respect of FIR No. 354/24 PS Sadar Bazar Page No. 31 of 36 Pankaj Kumar Singh v Mohd. Mohit & Anr. POOJA Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL DOD: 21.05.2026 AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.21 16:11:39 +0530 ANNEXURE A FORM - XVI, Central Motor Vehicles (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (part of Annexure XIII. Ref: Rule 150A) SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident : 03.04.2024
2. Name of the injured : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh
3. Age of the injured : 24 years
4. Occupation of the injured : Coaching Work
5. Income of the injured : Assessed on the basis of Minimum Wages of a Graduate Person prevailing in Delhi at the relevant time
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured : As per record
8. Period of hospitalisation : 03.04.2024 to 04.04.2024
9. Whether any permanent disability?
If yes, give details : Yes, permanent physical disability of 30% in relation to left lower limb
10. Computation of Compensation S.No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on treatment ₹1,19,289/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance ₹25,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet ₹30,000/-MACT No. 704/24
In Respect of FIR No. 354/24 PS Sadar Bazar Page No. 32 of 36 Pankaj Kumar Singh v Mohd. Mohit & Anr. POOJA Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL DOD: 21.05.2026 AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.21 16:11:48 +0530
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant ₹20,000/-
(v) Cost of artificial limb NA
(vi) Loss of earning capacity NA
(vii) Loss of income ₹23,732/-
(viii) Any other loss which may NA
require any special treatment or
aid to the injured for the rest of
his life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and ₹50,000/-
physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering
(iii) Loss of amenities of life
₹50,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration
(v) Loss of marriage prospects
(vi) Loss of earning, --
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 Permanent physical disability of assessed and nature of 30% in relation to left lower limb disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of --
expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning 15% capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future Income - ₹10,76,484/-
(Income × % Earning Capacity (rounded off) = Multiplier) MACT No. 704/24 In Respect of FIR No. 354/24 PS Sadar Bazar Page No. 33 of 36 Digitally signed by Pankaj Kumar Singh v Mohd. Mohit & Anr. POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL DOD: 21.05.2026 AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.21 16:11:55 +0530
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION ₹13,94,505/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED 7.5% p.a.
16. Interest amount up to the date ₹1,73,442/-
of award (rounded off)
17. Total amount including interest ₹15,67,947/-
18. Award amount released ₹3,07,947/-
19. Award amount kept in FDRs ₹12,60,000/-
20. Mode of disbursement of the Mentioned in the award award amount to the claimant(s)
21. Next date for compliance of the 01.07.2026 award
1. Prepared as per award dated 21.05.2026.
2. A separate file was ordered to be prepared by the Nazir with directions to put up the same on 01.07.2026.
Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.21
16:12:00 +0530
(POOJA AGGARWAL)
Presiding Officer, MACT-02 (Central) Tis Hazari, Delhi 21.05.2026(K) MACT No. 704/24 In Respect of FIR No. 354/24 PS Sadar Bazar Page No. 34 of 36 Digitally signed Pankaj Kumar Singh v Mohd. Mohit & Anr. POOJA by POOJA AGGARWAL DOD: 21.05.2026 AGGARWAL Date:
2026.05.21 16:12:06 +0530 ANNEXURE B FORM - XVII, Central Motor Vehicles (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (part of Annexure XIII. Ref: Rule 150A) Compliance of provisions of Scheme to be mentioned in the Award
1. Date of the accident 03.04.2024
2. Date of filing of Form-I - First Accident 08.04.2024 Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the N.A. victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the N.A. Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the N.A. Owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V-Interim N.A. Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form- N.A. VIB from the Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - Detailed 24.09.2024 Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or deficiency Yes on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Designated Not mentioned Officer by the Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated Officer of the No Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or deficiency Yes.
on the part of the Designated officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the petitioner(s) to the N.A. offer of the Insurance Company.
MACT No. 704/24
In Respect of FIR No. 354/24 PS Sadar Bazar Page No. 35 of 36
Pankaj Kumar Singh v Mohd. Mohit & Anr. Digitally signed
by POOJA
DOD: 21.05.2026 POOJA
AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL
Date:
2026.05.21
16:12:11 +0530
14. Date of the award 21.05.2026
15. Whether the petitioner (s) was/were Yes
directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which claimant(s) 24.09.2024 was/were directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar 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) produced 28.04.2026 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 Address of the Village Claimant(s). Pachokhar, Siwan, Bihar-841245
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank No account(s) is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at Yes the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.21
16:12:16 +0530
(POOJA AGGARWAL)
Presiding Officer, MACT-02 (Central) Tis Hazari, Delhi 21.05.2026(K) MACT No. 704/24 In Respect of FIR No. 354/24 PS Sadar Bazar Page No. 36 of 36 Pankaj Kumar Singh v Mohd. Mohit & Anr.
Digitally signed DOD: 21.05.2026 by POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.05.21
16:12:19 +0530