Delhi District Court
Chander Kala vs Jagdish Panth And Others on 26 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUDEEP RAJ SAINI
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-02
SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:
MACT No.1016/2022
Chander Kala vs. Jagdish Panth & Anr.
Smt. Chander Kala
W/o Sh. Ashok Kumar
R/o RZ-E-90, Maksoodabad Colony
Najafgarh, South-West Delhi
Delhi - 110 043.
....Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Jagdish Panth (Driver-cum-owner)
S/o Sh. Suresh Panth
R/o C-2/229, Nangli Vihar Extension
Bapraula, West Delhi - 110043
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. (Insurer)
having its registered office at:
ICICI Lombard House, 414, Veer Savarkar Marg
Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple
Prabhadevi, Mumbai - 400025
....Respondents
Date of institution : 26.09.2022
Date of concluding arguments : 23.12.2025
Date of decision : 26.12.2025
AWARD
1. The present Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter "DAR") was filed by the investigating officer, ASI Bidyanand, in FIR number 318 dated 29.05.2022, lodged at Police Station Baba Haridas Nagar under Sections 279/337 of MACT No. 1016/2022 Chander Kala vs. Jagdish Panth & Anr. Page No. 1 of 24 the IPC regarding the injuries suffered by the petitioner, Smt. Chander Kala, in a road accident involving a scooty bearing registration number DL 9SCA 4597. The DAR was treated as a claim petition under Section 166(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter "MV Act"). 1.1 Respondent no. 1, Sh. Jagdish Panth, is the driver-cum-owner and respondent no. 2, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., is the insurer of the said scooty.
DAR
2. As per the DAR, the petitioner is a resident of Maksoodabad Colony, Najafgarh, Delhi. On 29.05.2022, at about 11:00 am, the petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle being driven by her nephew, Dipanshu, from her house to her mother's house at Shiv Enclave, Nangloi Road. When they reached the turn near Gali No. 2, Shiv Enclave, a scooty bearing registration no. DL 9SCA 4597, which was being driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, hit their motorcycle from behind. Two persons were riding on the said scooty. Due to the impact, the petitioner and her nephew fell on the road, resulting in injuries to the petitioner. After the accident, the petitioner was initially taken to Swastik Hospital. As the X-ray machine there was not functional, she was taken to Ortho Care Hospital, Najafgarh, where she was treated. Defence of the Respondents
3. Notice of the DAR was served on the respondents. 3.1 Respondent no. 1 appeared but did not file any written statement. He was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 16.12.2022 of my learned predecessor. 3.2 Respondent no. 2 filed its written statement wherein it has admitted that the offending scooty bearing registration number DL 9SCA 4597 was duly insured with it. However, it has denied its liability inter alia on the ground that at the time of accident the respondent no. 1 was driving the scooty without having any valid driving licence.
Inquiry MACT No. 1016/2022 Chander Kala vs. Jagdish Panth & Anr. Page No. 2 of 24
4. After completion of the pleadings, following issues were framed on 16.12.2022, by my learned predecessor:
(1) Whether petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 29.05.2022 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration no. DL 9SCA 4597 being driven and owned by respondent no. 1? OPP.
(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom? OPP.
(3) Relief.
Thereafter, the claim petition was fixed for petitioner's evidence.
5. In order to prove her claim, the petitioner examined herself as PW1 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit and the same is exhibited as Ex. PW1/A. 5.1 The petitioner deposed to the circumstances of the accident in a manner consistent with the version recorded in the DAR. She claimed that the accident took place due to the negligence of the driver of offending scooty bearing registration number DL 9SCA 4597. She deposed that she was a homemaker at the time of accident. She further deposed regarding the expenses incurred by her on her treatment.
5.2 The petitioner has relied on the following documents in support of her testimony:
Ex. PW1/1 is the set of her treatment record and medical bills. Ex. PW 1/ 2 is the DAR.
Ex. PW 1/3 is the copy of her Aadhaar card.
5.3 In her cross-examination, the petitioner deposed that the offending scooty was coming from behind and hit the motorcycle on which she was sitting as a pillion rider from the right side. She further stated that they were about to take a right turn, but before the turn could be taken, the scooty hit the motorcycle. She denied the suggestion that they had turned the motorcycle to the right side without giving any indication, due to which the accident had occurred.
MACT No. 1016/2022 Chander Kala vs. Jagdish Panth & Anr. Page No. 3 of 24
6. After completion of petitioner's evidence, the matter was fixed for respondents' evidence.
7. The respondent no.1 did not lead any evidence.
8. The respondent no.2 examined Ms. Nidhi Jha, its Manager Legal, as R2W1. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit and the same is exhibited as Ex. R2W1/A. 8.1 R2W1 deposed that the offending scooty was insured with respondent no. 2 at the time of the accident. She further deposed that respondent no. 1 was driving the offending scooty without holding a valid and effective driving licence and had been charge-sheeted under Sections 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Despite service of notice, he failed to produce a valid driving licence. She further deposed that the same amounted to a violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and, therefore, respondent no. 2 was not liable to indemnify the insured. 8.2 R2W1 relied on the following documents in support of her testimony:
Ex. R2W1/1 is the office copy of notice under Order XII Rule 8 of CPC addressed to respondent no.1.
Ex. R2W1/2 is the original postal receipt.
Ex. R2W1/3 is the copy of insurance policy.
9. I have heard learned counsels Sh. R.K. Singh and Ms. Rajput Simmy for the petitioner, and Sh. Mehtab Singh the respondent no. 2. I have perused the record. My issue-wise findings are as under:
Issue No. 1:
Whether petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 29.05.2022 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration no. DL 9SCA 4597 being driven and owned by respondent no. 1? OPP.
10. Onus to prove this issue was on the petitioner. The petitioner has relied on her testimony as well as the DAR.
11. At this stage, it will be worth to take a brief look at the legal position regarding the standard of proof required to be met by the petitioner, in an MACT No. 1016/2022 Chander Kala vs. Jagdish Panth & Anr. Page No. 4 of 24 accident case, before a claims tribunal.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bimla Devi and Others vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Others (2009) 13 SCC 530 has held:
"15.In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both the parties."
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mangla Ram vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others (2018) 5 Supreme Court Cases 656 has laid down in paragraphs 27 & 28:
"27. ...This Court in a recent decision in Dulcina Fernandes, noted that the key of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle as set up by the claimants was required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Suffice it to observe that the exposition in the judgments already adverted to by us, filing of charge-sheet against Respondent 2 prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly.
Further, even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, this Court opined that the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal.
28. Reliance placed upon the decisions in Minu B. Mehta and Meena Variyal, by the respondents, in our opinion, is of no avail. The dictum in these cases is on the matter in issue in the case concerned. Similarly, even the dictum in Surender Kumar Arora will be of no avail. In the present case, considering the entirety of the pleadings, evidence and circumstances on record and in particular the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the factum of negligence of Respondent 2, the driver of the offending jeep, the High Court committed manifest error in taking a contrary view which, in our opinion, is an error apparent on the face of record and manifestly wrong."
14. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Pushpa Rana & Others 2008 (101) DRJ 645 has held:
"12. The last contention of the appellant insurance company is that the respondents claimants should have proved negligence on the part of the driver and in this regard the counsel has placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal; 2007 (5) SCALE 269. On perusal of the award MACT No. 1016/2022 Chander Kala vs. Jagdish Panth & Anr. Page No. 5 of 24 of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the wife of the deceased had produced (i) certified copy of the criminal record of criminal case in FIR No. 955/2004, pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle,
(ii) criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of charge sheet under Section 279/304-A,IPC against the driver;
(iii) certified copy of FIR, wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of the deceased. These documents are sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent.
Proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Hence, this contention of the counsel for the appellant also falls face down. There is ample evidence on record to prove negligence on the part of the driver."
15. It is clear from the above discussed authoritative pronouncements that in claim petition under MV Act, strict proof of an accident caused by particular vehicle in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the petitioner. The petitioner is merely to establish her case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. Filing of charge-sheet against the driver prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. Further, even if the driver were to be acquitted in the criminal case, the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal. The Tribunal must take a holistic view of the matter.
16. The issue of negligence on the part of respondent no. 1 is to be examined in the light of the evidence brought on record.
16.1 In the present case, the accident took place on 29.05.2022 at around 11.00 am and the petitioner lodged FIR no.318 at Police Station Baba Haridas Nagar on the same day. Hence, there was no delay in lodging of the FIR. 16.2 On completion of investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet against the respondent no. 1 under Sections 279/338 of the IPC and Sections 3/181 of the MV Act showing the involvement of offending scooty bearing registration no. DL 9SCA 4597.
16.3 It is not in dispute that in the criminal case arising out of the accident, the learned MM-07, South-West, Dwarka, New Delhi, vide order dated MACT No. 1016/2022 Chander Kala vs. Jagdish Panth & Anr. Page No. 6 of 24 12.10.2023 in Criminal Case no. 15769/2022 titled State vs. Jagdish Panth, has framed charges against respondent no. 1 under Sections 279/338 of the IPC and Sections 3/181 of the MV Act.
16.4The arrest memo dated 14.06.2022 shows that the respondent no. 1 was arrested in the criminal case related to the accident. 16.5 Respondent no. 1, in his reply to the order dated 14.06.2022 issued under Section 91 CrPC by the Investigating Officer for production of documents, admitted that he did not possess a valid driving licence. 16.6 The seizure memo dated 14.06.2022 of the offending scooty bearing registration no. DL 9SCA 4597 shows that it was seized by the Investigating Officer, ASI Bidyanand.
16.7 As per the seizure memo dated 29.05.2022 of the motorcycle bearing registration no .DL 9S BW 4042 of the petitioner was seized in an accidental condition from the spot of accident. 16.8 The Mechanical Inspection Report dated 15.06.2022 of the offending scooty bearing registration no. DL 9SCA 4597 shows that it suffered damages.
16.9 The deposition of the petitioner regarding the accident and negligence of the respondent no. 1 is consistent.
16.10 The respondent no. 1 has neither denied his involvement in the accident nor negligence on his part by either filing his written statement or by leading evidence.
16.11 The medical documents forming part of the DAR further lend credence to its contents. MLC no. 53/22 of the petitioner dated 29.05.2022 issued by Ortho Care Hospital, reflects that the petitioner suffered grievous injuries in the accident.
17. Taking a holistic view, it stands proved, on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, that the accident in question was caused due to rash and negligent driving of scooty bearing registration no. DL 9SCA 4597, being driven and owned by respondent no. 1, Sh. Jagdish MACT No. 1016/2022 Chander Kala vs. Jagdish Panth & Anr. Page No. 7 of 24 Panth, thereby causing injuries to the petitioner. Issue no. 1 is therefore decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
Issue No. 2:
Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom? OPP.
18. Onus to prove this issue was on the petitioner.
In view of finding on Issue No. 1, the petitioner is held entitled to compensation for the injuries suffered by her in the road accident.
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) 1 SCC 343 has laid down the general principles relating to compensation in injury cases and held:
"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."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court also laid down the principles regarding assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability:
"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.
MACT No. 1016/2022 Chander Kala vs. Jagdish Panth & Anr. Page No. 8 of 24
(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity.
To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that the percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as the percentage of permanent disability).
(iii) The doctor who treated an injured claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard to the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety.
(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors."
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rekha Jain vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. MANU/SC/0773/2013, while dealing with the case of a 24 years old model and actress, who had suffered grievous injuries on her face and parts of her body held as follows:
"38. For a film actress, the physical appearance particularly the facial features are very important to act in the films and in T.V. serials. It is in her evidence that on account of the accident her face was disfigured, she has put on weight and has become fat and therefore she is unable to perform the role as an actress in films in future. Having regard to the nature of vocation she has been carrying on and wishes to carry on with in future, the opportunity is lost on account of the disfigurement of her face, to act in the films as an actress either as a heroine or actress in supporting role or any other role to be played in T.V. serials, albums and also as a model. It is in the evidence of the Appellant that as per the District Medical Board of Sambalpur, her permanent disability is 30%. Having regard to the nature of injuries and observations made by this Court and Karnataka High Court in the cases referred to supra, we have to record a finding of fact that the Appellant's permanent disability should be treated as 100% functional disablement as she cannot act in the films and in T.V. serials in future at all. Therefore, on account of the aforesaid reasons, she has suffered functional disability..."
Functional Disability of the Petitioner
21. The disability of the petitioner was assessed by the duly constituted Ortho Board of DDU Hospital in compliance of order dated 10.03.2023, of my learned predecessor. As per the Disability Certificate bearing No. F.1(1)/DDU/MB/2023 issued by duly constituted Ortho Board of DDU Hospital, New Delhi, the petitioner has suffered permanent physical disability of 22% in relation to right lower limb.
MACT No. 1016/2022 Chander Kala vs. Jagdish Panth & Anr. Page No. 9 of 24 21.1 The petitioner has not examined either the treating doctor or any member of the medical board which assessed her disability. 21.2 The petitioner, in her evidence by way of affidavit, has claimed that she is a homemaker. As per her Aadhaar card (Ex.PW1/5), the petitioner was 55 years of age at the time of accident.
21.3Bearing in mind that the petitioner is a homemaker, it is reasonable to infer that her work would involve a wide variety of tasks requiring the use of all four limbs. While the disability of the right lower limb may not completely incapacitate her from performing the household chores, it would nevertheless diminish her mobility and efficiency. Considering the permanent nature of the disability, the fact that it affects only one limb, the nature of the petitioner's vocation and her age, this Tribunal is of the view that the 22% permanent physical disability in relation to the right lower limb translates to 11% functional disability or loss of earning capacity.
Pecuniary damages (Special damages) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure
22. The petitioner, in her evidence by way of affidavit, claimed that she had incurred a sum of ₹1,00,000/- towards medical treatment. However, the medical bills placed on record by the petitioner aggregate to ₹11,399/- only. In view of the above, this Tribunal holds that the petitioner is entitled only to reimbursement of the original medical bills produced by her. Accordingly, the petitioner is awarded a sum of ₹11,399/- towards medicines and treatment.
23. The petitioner, in her evidence by way of affidavit, has claimed that she spent ₹60,000/- towards special diet and ₹60,000/- towards conveyance. She has not placed on record any bills regarding special diet and conveyance.
Keeping in view that the petitioner has suffered grievous injuries in her MACT No. 1016/2022 Chander Kala vs. Jagdish Panth & Anr. Page No. 10 of 24 right leg leading to permanent physical disability she must have incurred expenses on special diet and conveyance. Therefore, the petitioner is awarded ₹20,000/- towards special diet and ₹20,000/- towards conveyance.
24. The petitioner, in her evidence by way of affidavit, has claimed ₹60,000/- towards attendant charges. The petitioner has not provided any documentary proof regarding hiring of any attendant. 24.1 The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. Vs. Kumari Lalita 1982 SCC Online Delhi 123 has held that the victim cannot be deprived of compensation towards gratuitous service rendered by some family members for the benefit of tortfeasor. Therefore, a sum of ₹20,000/- is granted to the petitioner towards attendant charges. Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had she not been injured Loss of earning during the period of treatment
25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arvind Kumar Pandey & Ors. Vs. Girish Pandey & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 2512 Of 2024 addressed the question regarding the role of homemakers and assessment of their income in motor accident cases and held:
"7. Assuming that the deceased was not employed, it cannot be disputed that she was a homemaker. Her direct and indirect monthly income, in no circumstances, could be less than the wages admissible to a daily wager in the State of Uttarakhand under the Minimum Wages Act.
8. It goes without saying that the role of a homemaker is as important as that of a family member whose income is tangible as a source of livelihood for the family. The activities performed by a home-maker, if counted one by one, there will hardly be any doubt that the contribution invaluable. In fact, it is difficult to assess such a contribution in monetary terms."
26. Considering that the petitioner is a resident of Delhi and is a homemaker, her income is to be assessed as per Minimum Wages Act, 1948, as applicable to Delhi. As per the said Act, the minimum wages payable in Delhi to an unskilled worker on 29.05.2022 (the date of accident) was MACT No. 1016/2022 Chander Kala vs. Jagdish Panth & Anr. Page No. 11 of 24 ₹16,506/- per month. The same is taken to be the income of the petitioner (A).
27. Keeping in view that the petitioner has suffered permanent physical disability, it is presumed that it would have taken her around four months to recover from her injuries. The petitioner is therefore entitled to ₹16,506 x 4 = ₹66,024/- towards loss of earning during the period of treatment. Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability
28. As per the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others (2017) 16 SCC 680, the multiplier has to be taken on the basis of the age of the petitioner and for the age group 51-55 years, a multiplier of 11 is applicable. The petitioner is also entitled to addition of 10% of the established income towards future prospects since she was 51 to 55 years of age at the time of accident.
Loss of future earnings is calculated as follows:
Annual Income before the accident =₹16506/- x 12 = ₹1,98,072/- Future Prospects (addition of 10% of the established income)=₹19807.2 Annual Income including Future Prospects (A)= ₹2,17,879.2 Loss of Future Earning per annum (11 % of A)= ₹23966.71 Multiplier applicable with reference to age = 11 Loss of Future Earnings = ₹23966.71 x 11 = ₹2,63,633.81 Future medical expenses
29. The petitioner, in her evidence by way of affidavit, has claimed that she requires ₹1,00,000/- for her future treatment. No evidence has been led by the petitioner regarding her future treatment. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries
30. The following factors that are to be taken into account for assessing compensation under the head pain and suffering:
MACT No. 1016/2022 Chander Kala vs. Jagdish Panth & Anr. Page No. 12 of 24 i. Nature of injury ii. Parts of body where injuries occurred iii. Surgeries, if any iv. Confinement in hospital v. Duration of the treatment The accident took place on 29.05.2022 and the petitioner was treated at Ortho Care Hospital, Najafgarh, Delhi. The petitioner suffered fracture in her right leg.
As per her aforesaid disability certificate of DDU Hospital, the petitioner has suffered "post-traumatic malunited right both bone leg fracture with stiffness of right knee and ankle, joints with permanent physical disability of 22% (Twenty Two Percent) in relation to right lower limb". In these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to ₹30,000/- towards pain and suffering and ₹20,000/- towards mental and physical shock. Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage)
31. The permanent physical disability suffered by the petitioner is likely to affect her overall health, quality of life and lifestyle and therefore the petitioner is entitled to ₹20,000/- towards loss of amenities. Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity)
32. In the absence of any evidence on record, no case is made out for grant of compensation on account of loss of expectation of life. Other heads claimed by the petitioner:
33. In the absence of any evidence on record, no case is made out for grant of compensation to the petitioner under any other head.
34. The compensation payable under various heads is summarized below:
Serial Heads Amount
No.
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
1. Medicines & Treatment ₹11,399/-
2. Special Diet ₹20,000/-
MACT No. 1016/2022 Chander Kala vs. Jagdish Panth & Anr. Page No. 13 of 24
3. Conveyance ₹20,000/-
4. Attendant Charges ₹20,000/-
5. Loss of Earning during the period of ₹66,024/-
treatment 6 Loss of Future Earnings ₹2,63,633.81 Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)
7. Pain & Suffering ₹30,000/-
8. Mental & Physical Shock ₹20,000/-
9. Loss of amenities of life ₹20,000/-
Total ₹4,71,056.81
(rounded off to
₹4,71,100/-)
Liability
35. The respondent no. 1, being the principal tortfeasor, is primarily liable to make payment of compensation awarded to the petitioner. It is admitted by the respondent no. 2 that the offending scooty bearing registration no. DL 9SCA 4597 was insured with it on the day of the accident against third party risks.
35.1 Respondent no.2 has relied on the DAR to contend that respondent no. 1 was not having and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and the same amounted to breach of policy conditions. It is further contended that since the accident occurred on 29.05.2022, that is, after the amendments to the MV Act came into force on 01.04.2022, recovery rights cannot be granted in cases involving breach of policy conditions and the Insurance Company must, therefore, be exonerated from all liability. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of MACT No. 1016/2022 Chander Kala vs. Jagdish Panth & Anr. Page No. 14 of 24 Delhi in Go Digit General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Mohd Javed through Shehnaz & Others, INSC 2025: DHC: 5688.
35.2 Per contra, the petitioner contended that despite the amendments to the MV Act, the principle of "pay and recover" remains in effect. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in ICICI Lombard General Ins. Co. Ltd. vs. Arti Devi and Others 2025 ACJ
265. 35.3 The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, has significantly altered the provisions of the MV Act regarding recovery rights. The proviso to Section 149(4) of the unamended MV Act, which embodied the "pay and recover"
principle, has been omitted. The amended Section 150(2)(a)(ii) of MV Act expressly recognises driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, as laid down in Section 185, as a breach of the conditions of the insurance policy. 35.4 In Mohd Javed (supra), the Appellant Insurance Company challenged the grant of recovery rights by the Tribunal after the amendments to the MV Act came into force. The Hon'ble High Court held that the grant of recovery rights was clearly an inadvertent error on part of the Tribunal as the provision for grant of recovery rights is no longer available in the statute book. The relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced below:
"4. The challenge in the Impugned Award is made by the Appellant essentially on three grounds. Firstly, he submits that the testimony of the Investigating Officer [hereinafter referred to as "IO"] in the case does not inspire confidence. Secondly, it is contended that recovery rights have been wrongly granted by the learned Trial Court. Lastly, it is contended that the future medical expenses, attendant charges and special diet has been made on a speculative basis by the learned Tribunal.
5. So far as concerns the award of recovery rights, clearly that appears to be an inadvertent error by the learned Trial Court since, after the amendment to Section 166(3) of the MV Act with effect from 01.04.2022 which is the provision for grant of recovery rights is no longer available in the statute book."
MACT No. 1016/2022 Chander Kala vs. Jagdish Panth & Anr. Page No. 15 of 24 The Hon'ble High Court granted liberty to the Appellant Insurance Company to approach the Tribunal regarding the erroneous grant of recovery rights:
"10. At this stage, learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that he will limit his challenge to the grant of recovery rights, and that the Appellant may be permitted to withdraw the present Appeal to take appropriate steps before the learned Tribunal in this behalf.
11. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of. The pending Application also stands closed. Liberty is however, granted to the Appellant to approach the learned Tribunal on the aspect of wrongful grant of recovery rights, albeit in accordance with law."
35.5 In Arti Devi (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad was held :
"38. The court, therefore, holds that mere omission of proviso attached to sub-section (4) of section 149 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 after its replacement by section 150 of Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 (32 of 2019), neither takes away the liability of the insurer to pay the claimants nor its right to recover the said amount from the owner. The law to this effect remains intact and unaffected by Amendment Act, 2019 and, hence, insurer shall continue to indemnify the owner's risk in relation to accidents taking place after 1.4.2022 and 'pay and recover' principle will still conti-nue to govern the field advancing social object of the statute protecting third party interest. Principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, 2004 ACJ 1 (SC), has not lost its significance and binding effect despite omission of proviso. Held accordingly."
35.6 The evidence led by respondent no. 2 in this regard has remained unrebutted.
35.7 In view of the deposition of R2W1, Ms. Nidhi Jha, the contents of the FIR and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, this Tribunal holds that respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle without having an effective and valid driving licence at the time of the accident, which amounted to breach of the conditions of the insurance policy. 35.8 In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Mohd Javed (supra), which is binding on this Tribunal, it is held that in accident cases arising after the amendments to the MV Act came into force on 01.04.2022, recovery rights cannot be granted to the Insurance Company for breach of policy conditions. Accordingly, MACT No. 1016/2022 Chander Kala vs. Jagdish Panth & Anr. Page No. 16 of 24 respondent no. 2 is absolved of its liability towards the petitioner in respect of the accident in question.
Respondent no. 1 shall be liable to pay the award amount, along with accrued interest, to the petitioner.
Issue No. 2 is decided accordingly.
Issue No. 3: Relief
36. In view of findings on issue number 2, the petitioner is held entitled to a sum of ₹4,71,100/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Seventy One Thousand One Hundred Only) along with simple interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of institution of claim petition, that is, 26.09.2022 till the date of compliance, that is, 25.01.2026. Thereafter, simple interest @ 12% per annum for delayed payment, if any. The amount of interim award and interest for the suspended period, if any, during the course of this inquiry, shall be excluded from the award amount.
Direction(s) to Respondent No. 1 :
37. In terms of Section 168(3) of the MV Act, the award amount along with interest shall be deposited/ transferred by respondent no. 1, Sh. Jagdish Panth, in the bank account of this Tribunal (Bank Account No. 42709452600 at State Bank of India, District Court Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka New Delhi; IFSC Code SBIN0011566; MICR Code 110002483) by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS within 30 days of award under intimation to the Nazir of this Tribunal and with notice of deposit to the petitioner. Release
38. The statement of the petitioner regarding his financial status, needs and liabilities has been recorded.
The details of the MACT bank account of the petitioner and the address of the bank with IFSC Code are as follows:
Name Bank Details
MACT No. 1016/2022 Chander Kala vs. Jagdish Panth & Anr. Page No. 17 of 24
Smt. Chander Kala A/c no. 42660169474 at State Bank of India, Roshan Mandi,
Najafgarh, New Delhi; IFSC Code: SBIN0032691.
39. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajesh Tyagi & Others vs. Jaibir Singh & Others FAO No. 842/2003 has formulated the Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) scheme vide its order dated 01.05.2018 and implemented the same vide its subsequent orders dated 07.12.2018 and 08.01.2021.
40. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 16.07.2024 in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Private Ltd. vs. Union Of India & Others Writ Petition (Civil) no. 534/2020 has held:
"9. To clarify the aforesaid position, it is for the Tribunal in a given case to make a decision as to whether the entire amount has to be released or if it is to be released in part. Suffice it is to state that the Tribunal is expected to give its own reasoning while undertaking such an exercise."
Schedule of Disbursal
41. Keeping in view the quantum of the award, expenses incurred by the petitioner on her treatment and loss of earning during the period of treatment, fifty percent (50%) of the award amount be immediately released to the petitioner.
The remaining fifty percent (50%) of the award amount of the petitioner be kept in the form of one FDR for a period of one year in terms of the aforesaid MACAD scheme.
Directions to the Bank(s)
42. The Manager, State Bank of India, District Court Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka and the Manager, State Bank of India, Roshan Mandi, Najafgarh, New Delhi, are directed to comply with the Schedule of Disbursal provided in this Award.
The said Managers are further directed that:
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the MACT MACT No. 1016/2022 Chander Kala vs. Jagdish Panth & Anr. Page No. 18 of 24 accounts of the petitioner.
(b) The original fixed deposit/FDR 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 petitioner.
(c) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the FDR without permission of this Tribunal.
(d) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to petitioner for her MACT account. 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.
43. The Form-XVI of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, as per the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) on 08.01.2021 is as under:
FORM-XVI SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident: 29.05.2022
2. Name of injured: Smt. Chander Kala
3. Age of the injured: 55 years (at the time of accident)
4. Occupation of the injured: Homemaker
5. Income of the injured: ₹16,506/- per month
6. Nature of injury: Grievous injury
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured: Ortho Care Hospital, Delhi.
8. Period of hospitalization: Nil.
9. Whether any permanent disability? Permanent physical disability of 22 % in relation to right lower limb.
10. Computation of Compensation S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss MACT No. 1016/2022 Chander Kala vs. Jagdish Panth & Anr. Page No. 19 of 24
(i) Expenditure on treatment ₹11,399/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance ₹ 20,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet ₹20,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant ₹20,000/-
(v) Cost of artificial limb Nil.
(vi) Loss of future earning ₹2,63,633.81
(vii) Loss of income ₹66,024/-
(viii) Any other loss which may require Nil
any special treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of him life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and ₹20,000/-
physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering ₹30,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life ₹20,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration Nil.
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Nil.
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, As above.
hardships, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and unhappiness in
future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability assessed Permanent Physical and nature of disability as Disability of 22% in relation MACT No. 1016/2022 Chander Kala vs. Jagdish Panth & Anr. Page No. 20 of 24 permanent or temporary to right lower limb.
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of Not Applicable expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning Not Applicable capacity in relation of disability
(iv) Loss of future income -(Income x ₹2,63,633.81/-
% Earning Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION ₹4,71,056.81 (rounded off to ₹4,71,100/-)
15. INTEREST AWARDED Simple interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of institution of the petition (26.09.2022) till the date of compliance (25.01.2026).
Thereafter, simple interest @ 12% per annum.
16. Interest amount up to the date of ₹1,14,831/-
award
17. Total amount including interest up ₹5,85,931/-
to the date of award
18. Award amount released 50%
19. Award amount kept in FDRs 50%
20. Mode of disbursement of the Account Transfer award amount to the claimant(s)
21. Next date for compliance of the 25.01.2026 award
44. The Form-XVII of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, as per the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) on 08.01.2021 is as under:
FORM-XVII MACT No. 1016/2022 Chander Kala vs. Jagdish Panth & Anr. Page No. 21 of 24 COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of the accident 29.05.2022
2. Date of filing of Form I- First Not Known Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the Not Known victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from Not Known the Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from Not Known the owner
6. Date of filing of the Form- Not Known V- Interim Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Not Known Form VIB from the Victim (s)
8. Date of filing of Form- 26.09.2022 VII- Detailed Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or Yes.
deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, No action warranted at this stage whether any action/direction as it is not a case of prolonged warranted? delay.
10. Date of appointment of the Not Known Designated Officer by the Insurance Company.
11. Whethim the Designated Officer No. of the Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. No. MACT No. 1016/2022 Chander Kala vs. Jagdish Panth & Anr. Page No. 22 of 24 warranted?
13. Date of response of the No. claimants(s) of the offer of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the award 26.12.2025
15. Whether the claimants(s) Yes was/were directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which 26.09.2022 claimants(s) was/were directed to open savings bank account(s) near him 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 claimants(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s).
17. Date on which the claimant(s) 19.03.2025 produced the passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of RZ-E-90, Maksoodabad Colony, the claimant(s) Najafgarh, South-West Delhi, Delhi - 110 043.
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings Yes bank account(s) is near him place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) was/were Yes examined at the time of passing of the award to ascertain him/their financial condition?
45. Dasti copy of Award be given to the parties free of cost.
46. Attested copy of Award be sent to the Manager, State Bank of India, MACT No. 1016/2022 Chander Kala vs. Jagdish Panth & Anr. Page No. 23 of 24 District Court Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka New Delhi.
47. Copy of Award be also sent to the concerned learned Judicial Magistrate and Delhi State Legal Services Authority.
48. Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII as per the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra).
49. Ahlmad is directed to prepare a separate miscellaneous file to be listed on 27.02.2026 for compliance report.
50. File be consigned to the record room after compliance of necessary formalities.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (SUDEEP RAJ SAINI)
COURT ON 26.12.2025 PO, MACT-02, SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
SUDEEP Digitally signed
by SUDEEP RAJ
RAJ SAINI
Date: 2025.12.26
SAINI 15:12:48 +0530
MACT No. 1016/2022 Chander Kala vs. Jagdish Panth & Anr. Page No. 24 of 24