Delhi District Court
Bali Ram Bhola (I) (Fir54/18/Kotwali) vs Budh Ratan (Bajaj ) on 30 January, 2026
IN THE TRIBUNAL OF PRESIDING OFFICER MACT-02:
CENTRAL DISTRICT:
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI.
PRESIDED OVER BY Ms. POOJA AGGARWAL, DHJS.
MACT No. 343/18
CNR/UID No. DL-CT01-017653-2018
In Respect of:
FIR No.: 54/2018
U/s: 279/338 IPC
PS: Kotwali
Sh. Bali Ram (Injured)
S/o Late Sh. Raja Ram
R/o H.No. 640,
Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi.
(Through Ld. Counsel Sh. Palvinder Singh)
......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh. Budh Ratan (Driver)
S/o Sh. Prasad
R/o H.No. A-57, Budh Vihar,
Mandir Ke Pass, Budh Vihar,
Colony, Jaitpur, Delhi.
2. Ola Fleet Technologies Private Ltd. (Regd. Owner)
Building No. 1, 3rd Floor, Sector B-1,
LSC Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-70
(Through Ld. Counsel Sh. Sanjeev Kumar)
3. Sh. Akash Bisht (Lessee)
S/o Late Sh. Gopal Singh
R/o H.No. B-9/20A, Udaigiri Apartment,
MACT No. 343/18
In respect of FIR No.: 54/2018 U/s: 279/338 IPC PS: Kotwali Digitally signed
by POOJA
Bali Ram Vs. Budh Ratan & Ors. POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 1 of 42
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.30
15:48:21
+0530
Sector-24, Noida, Delhi.
4. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.
(Insurer).
Golden Height, 4th Floor No.
½, 59th C Cross, 4th M-Block,
Rajajinagar, Banglore.
Also at: 7th Floor, 4th Block, DLF Tower,
15, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi-110015
(Through Ld. Counsel Sh. Manjul Awasthi)
.....Respondents
AWARD/JUDGMENT
1. A Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred to as 'DAR')
was filed by the Investigating Officer in respect of FIR No. 54/18
u/s 279/338 IPC PS Kotwali regarding a motor vehicle accident
which took place on 14.02.2018 at about 02.55 p.m., behind Red
Fort Ring Road, between a vehicle bearing No. DL-8SCD-6475
and the vehicle bearing No. HR-55X-5342 (tourist motor cab)
(hereinafter referred to as "Offending Vehicle") resulting in
grievous injury to Sh. Bali Ram S/o Late Sh. Raja Ram
(hereinafter referred to as 'Petitioner/ injured'), when the
offending vehicle hit his bike from behind and ran away.
2. During investigation in respect of the FIR No. 54/18 u/s 279/338
IPC PS Kotwali, it was found that at the time of the accident, the
offending vehicle was being driven by Budh Ratan (hereinafter
referred to as "Respondent No.1"), the registered owner was
OLA Fleet Technologies Tour & Travels (hereinafter referred to
as "Respondent No.2"), lessee was Akash Bisht (hereinafter
referred to as "Respondent No.3") and the offending vehicle was
MACT No. 343/18 Digitally signed
In respect of FIR No.: 54/2018 U/s: 279/338 IPC PS: Kotwali by POOJA
AGGARWAL
POOJA
Bali Ram Vs. Budh Ratan & Ors. AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.30
Page No. 2 of 42
15:48:28
+0530
insured with the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.
(hereinafter referred to as "Respondent No.4").
3. Vide order dated 21.04.2018 passed by the Ld. Predecessor, the
DAR was treated as a claim petition.
4. No written statement was filed by Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3
though they had entered appearance on 21.04.2018 and thereafter
they were proceeded exparte vide order dated 31.08.2018 passed
by Ld. Predecessor.
Facts as per the Legal Offer filed on behalf of Respondent No.4/
Insurance Company
5. In its legal offer, the Respondent No.4/ Insurance Company admitted that the vehicle no. HR-55X-5342 was insured with them for the period from 12.05.2017 to 11.04.2018 and as per the MLC, the injured had sustained grievous injuries, but as there was not document in the DAR showing expenses incurred on treatment or period of treatment as also the income of the injured, a legal offer of ₹59,337/- was made towards compensation stating that the income of the injured as per the minimum wages for unskilled worker i.e. ₹9,724/- per month. It was also stated that the claimant had sustained injuries due to his own negligence while driving the motorcycle without helmet contributing to the accident.
Issues
6. Vide order dated 31.08.2018 the following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor:-
MACT No. 343/18In respect of FIR No.: 54/2018 U/s: 279/338 IPC PS: Kotwali Digitally signed Bali Ram Vs. Budh Ratan & Ors. POOJA by POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 3 of 42 AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.30 15:48:38 +0530
1.Whether the petitioner Sh. Bali Ram Bhola suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 14.02.2018 at about 2.55 PM involving Tourist Motor Cab bearing registration No. HR-55X-5342 driven rashly and negligently by the respondent No. 1, owned by the Respondent no. 2 (registered owner) & respondent no. 3 (subsequent owner) and insured with the Respondent No.4?OPP.
2.Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
Petitioner's Evidence
7. As PW1, the Petitioner tendered his evidence affidavit i.e. Ex.
PW1/A, and inter-alia testified as to the accident having occurred on 14.02.2018 at about 02.10 P.M. behind the Red Fort, when his bike bearing registration no. DL-8SCD-6475 was struck by the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. HR-55X-5342, who was driving the car in a rash and negligent manner due to which he suffered grievous head injuries.
8. PW1/ Petitioner also testified that he was initially admitted in LNJP Hospital on 14.02.2018, he was treated at Sant Parmanand Hospital from 14.02.2018 to 16.03.2018 and thereafter he remained admitted in Action Balaji Hospital, Paschim Vihar from 27.03.2018 to 30.03.2018. He has further testified that he was continuously undergoing treatment till date.
9. He further testified that he was working as a Property Dealer earning about ₹50,000/- per month. He also testified that as a result of the accident, he suffered memory loss for some period and was totally dependent on others even for basic needs like MACT No. 343/18 Digitally signed In respect of FIR No.: 54/2018 U/s: 279/338 IPC PS: Kotwali by POOJA AGGARWAL Bali Ram Vs. Budh Ratan & Ors. POOJA AGGARWAL Date: Page No. 4 of 42 2026.01.30 15:48:48 +0530 going to washroom etc. and even today due to brain injury, he is not behaving like before and could not remember all the things. He also testified that he has not been able to resume work for livelihood.
10. The Petitioner also relied upon the following documents:-
S.No Description of Documents Exhibit/Mark
1. Copy of his ID-proof Ex. PW-1/1
2. Copy of his ITR of 2019-20 Ex. PW-1/2
3. Copy of discharge summary Ex.PW-1/3(Colly) and other medical documents with reports
4. Complete set of DAR Ex.PW-1/4(Colly)
5. Medical Bills including bills Ex.PW-1/5(Colly) summary
11. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No. 4/ Insurance Company.
Respondents' Evidence
12. Respondent No. 4 / Insurance Company examined only one witness i.e. R3W1 Dr. Vaibhav Patil, Associate Professor, Department of Neuro Psychiatry, AIIMS, New Delhi, who proved the report dated 17.02.2025 i.e. Ex. R3W1/1 as per which the repeat neuro-cognitive assessment and clinical evaluation of the patient indicated memory deficits with intact normal average intelligence. He also testified that the certificate Ex.R3W1/1 was basis for quantification of neuro-psychological disability which is a step further, but, in this case, the quantification had not been undertaken. He also testified that the current report did not MACT No. 343/18 Digitally signed In respect of FIR No.: 54/2018 U/s: 279/338 IPC PS: Kotwali POOJA by POOJA AGGARWAL Bali Ram Vs. Budh Ratan & Ors. AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.30 Page No. 5 of 42 15:48:56 +0530 indicate the exact impact which can be reported in numerals regarding neuro-psychological disability and that Ex.R3W1/1 was not a disability certificate. He was not cross-examined on behalf of the Petitioner despite opportunity.
13. After the testimony of R3W1, vide order dated 11.08.2025, the MS concerned was directed to take the evaluation to the next level for quantification of neuro-psychological disability by constituting a board of doctors, whereafter, a report dated 08.09.2025 was received from AIIMS, as per which "As per the Disability Gazette of India, March, 2024, the assessment of IDEAS for quantifying neuro-psychological disability yielded a score of 08 which indicated 40% (forty percentage) of disability."
14. Subsequent thereto, the Petitioner led additional evidence and examined three more witnesses.
15. PW-2 Dr. Swati Kedia Gupta from Department of Psychiatry, AIIMS, New Delhi, being a summoned witness, proved the report dated 07.10.2025 i.e. Ex.PW2/1 and same bears my signatures at Point A and also brought the copy of IDEAS score and the scale i.e. Ex.PW2/2 (Colly). She further testified that as per evaluation (IDEAS), the patient had a disability of 40% which indicated that he can do his self care independently but needs some assistance in social interaction and communication which means that he cannot talk fluently. She also testified that his ability to do professional work is significantly impaired, where he is required to do any business dealing or job, and that MACT No. 343/18 In respect of FIR No.: 54/2018 U/s: 279/338 IPC PS: Kotwali Digitally signed by POOJA Bali Ram Vs. Budh Ratan & Ors. POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 6 of 42 AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.30 15:49:02 +0530 he shall require assistance in social interaction and communication through out his life with there being no possibility of his further recovery. She was duly cross-examined on behalf of the Respondent No. 4/ Insurance Company wherein inter alia, she testified that as per Ex.PW2/2 (Colly), the patient had normal functioning of upper and lower limb, and occasionally, he would find it difficult in understating a question and to give a proper reply.
16. PW-3 Ms. Parmeet Kaur, Assistant Manager, Medical Records, Sri Balaji Action Medical Institute, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi being a summoned witness proved the detailed bill in the name of Mr. Bali Ram Bhola, dated 30.03.2018, for an amount of ₹60,350/- i.e. Ex. PW3/A (colly) and also brought his discharge summary dated 30.03.2018 i.e. Ex.PW3/B. She was duly cross- examined on behalf of Respondent No. 4/ Insurance Company and in response to a court Question, she admitted that the receipts at page no. 176 to 179 in the judicial file were in respect of the payment towards the bill Ex.PW3/A.
17. PW-4 Mr. Abhishek, Senior Accounts Executive, Sant Parmanand Hospital, Delhi, proved the summoned record i.e bill dated 16.03.2018 in the name of Mr. Bali Ram Bhola, for an amount of ₹5,23,415/- i.e. Ex.PW4/A (colly) as well as the discharge summary dated 16.03.2018 in the name of Mr. Bali Ram Bhola i.e. Ex.PW4/B. He was not cross-examined by the Respondents despite opportunity.
MACT No. 343/18 Digitally signed
by POOJA
In respect of FIR No.: 54/2018 U/s: 279/338 IPC PS: Kotwali POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
Bali Ram Vs. Budh Ratan & Ors. 2026.01.30 Page No. 7 of 42
15:49:09 +0530
Arguments and Issue-wise Findings
18. Final arguments were advanced on behalf of the Petitioner and Respondent No.4/ Insurance Company by their respective counsels.
19. While the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner seeks grant of maximum compensation arguing that the injury was the result of the accident caused by the offending vehicle, which was insured at the time of the accident, it has been argued on behalf of the Respondent No.4/ Insurance Company that there was no functional disability of the Petitioner since he had come to the court to depose, he filed his evidence affidavit mentioning all the facts, and gave replies to all questions which proved that he did not suffer from any neuro-psychological disability. It has also been argued on behalf of the insurance company that in the ITRs as a relied upon by the Petitioner himself, the income from house properties was reflected which still continues as no evidence to the contrary has been led, and therefore the income be taken as per the minimum wages of unskilled worker and not ₹50,000 as claimed by the Petitioner. It has also been argued driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle without any license and the injured/ Petitioner was not wearing any helmet and hence 30% contributory negligence be deducted.
20. The arguments as advanced have been carefully considered along with the evidence on record and after careful consideration of the same, the issue wise findings are as under:
MACT No. 343/18 Digitally signed In respect of FIR No.: 54/2018 U/s: 279/338 IPC PS: Kotwali POOJA by POOJA AGGARWAL Bali Ram Vs. Budh Ratan & Ors. AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.30 Page No. 8 of 42 15:49:15 +0530 Issue No. 1: Whether the Petitioner Sh. Bali Ram suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 14.02.2018 at about 02.55 pm involving Tourist Motor Cab bearing registration No. HR-55X-5342 driven rashly and negligently by the Respondent No. 1, owned by the Respondent no. 2 (registered owner) & Respondent No. 3 (subsequent owner) and insured with the Respondent No.4?OPP.
21. The onus to prove this issue was upon the Petitioner. As PW1, the Petitioner/ injured has categorically testified as to the accident having taken place on 14.02.2018, at about 02.10 P.M, behind Red Fort, when his bike bearing No. DL-8SCD-6475, was hit from behind by the car bearing No. HR-55X-5342, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, resulting in grievous head injuries to him.
22. His testimony is consistent with his earlier statement recorded during investigation of the accident in FIR No. 54/18, u/s 279/338 IPC, PS Kotwali, and his clear and unequivocal testimony in respect of the factum as well as the manner of the accident could not be discredited by the Respondent No. 4/ Insurance Company through cross-examination.
23. No evidence has been brought on record to disbelieve the testimony of the Petitioner/injured as to the accident having taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of Respondent No.1 nor the Respondent No. 1 appeared to explain the circumstances under which the accident took place, therefore, an adverse inference on this aspect is also drawn against the Respondents in MACT No. 343/18 Digitally signed In respect of FIR No.: 54/2018 U/s: 279/338 IPC PS: Kotwali POOJA by POOJA AGGARWAL Bali Ram Vs. Budh Ratan & Ors. AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.30 Page No. 9 of 42 15:49:23 +0530 view of the legal proposition as laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, in MAC.APP 530/2008 on 11.11.2008. Further, no evidence has been brought on record by the Respondents to prove existence of any previous enmity of the injured with any of the Respondents to afford any motive for false implication.
24. The act of hitting a vehicle from behind is itself indicative of existence of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle even more so, when the driver/Respondent No.1 did not even appear to set up any defence or to controvert the version of the Petitioner/injured.
25. It is further noted that it is not in dispute that in respect of accident in question, the Respondent No. 1 was charge-sheeted for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279/338 IPC in the FIR No. 54/18, under Section 279/338 IPC, PS Kotwali, by the investigating agency after concluding its investigation on the aspect of cause of the accident as well as the identity of the offender and therefore the same also indicates existence of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the Respondent No. 1.
26. Strength for this interpretation is drawn from the judgement of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa Rana, 2009 ACJ 287 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepak Goel & Ors, 2014 (2) MACT No. 343/18 Digitally signed In respect of FIR No.: 54/2018 U/s: 279/338 IPC PS: Kotwali by POOJA AGGARWAL POOJA Bali Ram Vs. Budh Ratan & Ors. AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.30 Page No. 10 of 42 15:49:29 +0530 TAC 846 (Del) wherein the Coordinate Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, held as under :-
"......where the claimants filed either the certified copies of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of investigation by police or issuance of charge sheet under Section 279/304A IPC or the certified copy of FIR or the recovery of the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, then these documents are sufficient proof to reach to a conclusion that the driver was negligent particularly when there is no defence available from the side of driver."
(Emphasis supplied)
27. It is a settled proposition of law that in this Tribunal, strict proof of an accident having been caused in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the Petitioner, and he is to establish his case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied. Strength for this interpretation is drawn from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, (2009) 13 SC 530, also reiterated in various subsequent judgments including Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. , (2018) 5 SCC 656, Geeta Dubey Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors, 2024 SCC Online SC 3779 and Sajeena Ikhbal and Others Vs Mini Babu George and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2883.
28. In Prabhavathi v. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corpn., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 455, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has again reiterated that:
"13. It is the settled law that under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 it is established that in compensation cases, the strict rules of evidence MACT No. 343/18 In respect of FIR No.: 54/2018 U/s: 279/338 IPC PS: Kotwali Digitally signed by POOJA Bali Ram Vs. Budh Ratan & Ors. POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 11 of 42 AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.30 15:49:36 +0530 used in criminal trials do not apply. Instead, the standard of proof is based on the preponderance of probability. This Court in Sunita v. Rajasthan SRTC1 observed that: "22. It is thus well settled that in motor accident claim cases, once the foundational fact, namely, the actual occurrence of the accident, has been established, then the Tribunal's role would be to calculate the quantum of just compensation if the accident had taken place by reason of negligence of the driver of a motor vehicle and, while doing so, the Tribunal would not be strictly bound by the pleadings of the parties. Notably, while deciding cases arising out of motor vehicle accidents, the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases."
The exposition came to be reiterated in Rajwati alias Rajjo v. United India Insurance Company Ltd.2, wherein it was observed that:
"20. It is well settled that Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial piece of legislation and as such, while dealing with compensation cases, once the actual occurrence of the accident has been established, the Tribunal's role would be to award just and fair compensation. As held by this Court in Sunita (Supra) and Kusum Lata(Supra), strict rules of evidence as applicable in a criminal trial, are not applicable in motor accident compensation cases, i.e., to say, "the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases".
(Emphasis supplied)
29. The Petitioner cannot be expected to prove the accident beyond reasonable doubts and the principle of res ipse loquitor should apply which means that the "accident speaks for itself". Thus, once it has been established in DAR and chargesheet that the accident had taken place, the burden shifts on the Respondents to prove that they were not responsible for the accident which the Respondents have failed to discharge.
1(2020) 13 SCC 486
2 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1699 Digitally
signed by
MACT No. 343/18 POOJA
AGGARWAL
POOJA
In respect of FIR No.: 54/2018 U/s: 279/338 IPC PS: Kotwali AGGARWAL Date:
Bali Ram Vs. Budh Ratan & Ors. 2026.01.30 15:50:11 Page No. 12 of 42 +0530
30. Thus, in view of the aforesaid reasons and discussion, in view of the evidence as led including the chargesheet, as well as oral testimony of PW-1 who is an eye-witness of the accident being the injured himself, and in the absence of any evidence regarding any mechanical defect in the offending vehicle or any material depicting any negligent/ sudden act or omission on the part of injured having been brought on record, it is held that on the scale of preponderance of probability, the Petitioner has discharged his burden and has proved that the accident took place on 14.02.2018 at about 02.55 p.m. involving Tourist Motor Cab bearing registration No. HR-55X-5342 driven rashly and negligently by the Respondent No. 1, owned by the Respondent No. 2 (registered owner) & Respondent No. 3 (lessee) and insured with the Respondent No.4 as the factum of the offending vehicle being insured with the Respondent No.4 at the time of the accident is not in dispute having been admitted by the Respondent No. 4/ Insurance company in its legal offer itself.
Injury
31. In respect of the injury, it is noted that as per the testimony of PW1/ Petitioner, he had sustained grievous head injury due to the accident. His MLC No. 111606, dated 14.02.2018 prepared at Lok Nayak Hospital being a part of the DAR i.e. Ex.PW-1/4 (colly), also reflects history of RTA, complaint of head injury with loss of consciousness and ENT bleed, and upon local examination, it was found that he had a clear lacerated wound on the front temporal region, and reflects the nature of injuries to be grievous injury, which also corroborates the factum of the MACT No. 343/18 In respect of FIR No.: 54/2018 U/s: 279/338 IPC PS: Kotwali Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA Bali Ram Vs. Budh Ratan & Ors. AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: Page No. 13 of 42 2026.01.30 15:50:17 +0530 Petitioner, having been grievously injured in the road accident on 14.02.2018.
32. The PW1/Petitioner has also relied upon the medical documents including the discharge summary etc i.e. Ex.PW-1/3 (colly), in respect of his treatment at Sant Parmanand Hospital from 14.02.2018 to 16.03.2018 and thereafter, regarding his admission in Action Balaji Hospital, Paschim Vihar from 27.03.2018 to 30.03.2018. The discharge summary issued by Sant Parmanand Hospital (forming part of Ex.PW-1/3) reflects that the Petitioner was diagnosed with RTA with severe Head Injury. The said discharge summary also reflects that the Petitioner had suffered also fractures and remained admitted in the Hospital for more than a month i.e. from 14.02.2018 to 16.03.2018. Even the discharge summary issued by the Sri Balaji Action Medical Institute reflects that the Petitioner remained admitted therein from 27.03.2018 to 30.03.2018. No reason has been brought on record to disbelieve either the MLC or even the discharge summaries forming part of Ex.PW-1/3, which, on the scale of preponderance of probabilities, sufficiently proves that the accident in question resulted in grievous injury to the Petitioner.
33. This issue is thus decided in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents.
Issue No. 2: Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
MACT No. 343/18 Digitally signed In respect of FIR No.: 54/2018 U/s: 279/338 IPC PS: Kotwali POOJA by POOJA AGGARWAL Bali Ram Vs. Budh Ratan & Ors. AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.30 Page No. 14 of 42 15:50:26 +0530
34. As the issue no.1 has been decided in favour of Petitioner and against Respondents, the Petitioner is entitled to be compensated for the injuries suffered by him in the above accident 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.
35. The guiding principles for assessment of "just and reasonable compensation" in fatal case 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)
36. 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 well as non-pecuniary damages. The two categories of damages has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.D. MACT No. 343/18 In respect of FIR No.: 54/2018 U/s: 279/338 IPC PS: Kotwali Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA Bali Ram Vs. Budh Ratan & Ors. AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.30 Page No. 15 of 42 15:50:31 +0530 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)
37. 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 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 -
MACT No. 343/18 Digitally signed
In respect of FIR No.: 54/2018 U/s: 279/338 IPC PS: Kotwali by POOJA
AGGARWAL
POOJA
Bali Ram Vs. Budh Ratan & Ors. AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.30 Page No. 16 of 42
15:50:36
+0530
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)
38. 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. 343/18 Digitally signed In respect of FIR No.: 54/2018 U/s: 279/338 IPC PS: Kotwali POOJA by POOJA AGGARWAL Bali Ram Vs. Budh Ratan & Ors. AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.30 Page No. 17 of 4215:50:43 +0530
39. 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.
40. In respect of his treatment/ medicine, hospitalization etc., in his evidence affidavit, the Petitioner has relied upon certain medical bills/ documents i.e. Ex.PW-1/5 as per which the total expenses were of ₹7,58,121/-. PW3 Parmeet Kaur has duly proved the bill Ex.PW-3/A for the sum of ₹60,350/- while PW4 Abhishek has duly proved the bill Ex.PW-4/A for a sum of ₹5,23,415/- which bills are already a part of Ex.PW-1/5.
41. However, it is duly noted that the bills at page no. 101, 114 and 121 pertain to ambulance charges, the bill at page no. 128 of Ex.PW-1/5 pertains to attendant charges and the bills at page no. 138, 140 and 142 pertain to protein supplement i.e. towards special diet. That being so, these bills cannot be considered under this head and shall be considered under the relevant heads.
42. No reason has been brought on record to disbelieve the bills produced by the Petitioner and hence he is awarded a sum of ₹7,49,811/- which is the total of the bills produced by him towards treatment/medicine/hospitalization.
MACT No. 343/18 Digitally signed
In respect of FIR No.: 54/2018 U/s: 279/338 IPC PS: Kotwali POOJA by POOJA
AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.30
Bali Ram Vs. Budh Ratan & Ors. 15:50:48 +0530 Page No. 18 of 42
43. In respect of expenses towards nourishing food, it is noted that though the Petitioner has brought on record the bills at page no. 138, 140 and 142 which pertain to protein supplement i.e. towards special diet for the total of ₹3,605/- but at the same time, considering the nature of his injury and the treatment, he is likely to have incurred more expenses towards nourishing food for faster recovery. That being so, a sum of ₹30,000/- is awarded to the Petitioner under the head of special diet.
44. It can also not be overlooked that as per the documents on record, the Petitioner has remained under treatment till atleast 24.10.2019, and he has also placed on record bills at page no. 101, 114 and 121 totaling ₹3,100/- which pertain to ambulance charges. Considering that the nature of injuries sustained by the Petitioner resulted in 40% neuro-psychological disability, he is likely to have incurred expenses towards conveyance/ transport during his treatment due to such injuries and subsequent disability. That being so, a sum of ₹30,000/- is awarded to the Petitioner under the head of transportation/ conveyance.
45. In respect of the misc. expenses, PW1/Petitioner has placed on record a bill at page no. 128 of Ex.PW-1/5 (colly) for ₹35,000/- which pertains to attendant charges, and the said bill has not even been disputed by the Respondents in the cross-examination. Hence, a sum of ₹35,000/- is awarded to the Petitioner under the head of Misc Expenses (Attendant charges).
MACT No. 343/18 Digitally
In respect of FIR No.: 54/2018 U/s: 279/338 IPC PS: Kotwali signed by
POOJA
Bali Ram Vs. Budh Ratan & Ors. Page No. 19 of 42
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.30
15:50:54
+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.
46. In respect of loss of earning during the period of treatment , it is noted that as per the medical documents on record i.e. the discharge summary issued by Sant Parmanand Hospital (forming part of Ex PW1/3), he remained admitted in the Hospital for more than a month i.e. from 14.02.2018 to 16.03.2018, while as per the discharge summary issued by the Sri Balaji Action Medical Institute, the Petitioner remained admitted therein from 27.03.2018 to 30.03.2018. The last medical document at page 69 of Ex.PW-1/3 (colly) is dated 24.10.2019, which proves that the Petitioner remained under treatment for atleast 1 year 8 months after the accident.
47. However, for the loss of income, if any, for such period, the quantum of monthly income of Petitioner needs to be ascertained. It is noted that as PW1, the Petitioner he has testified in Ex.PW-1/A that he was earning about ₹50,000/- per month as he was working as a property dealer. Despite such testimony, PW1/ Petitioner did not bring on record any document including ITR to corroborate his self serving testimony in respect of him working as a property dealer or earning ₹50,000/- per month from the same.
48. Rather, the ITR placed on record by the Petitioner himself i.e. ITR for the Assessment Year 2019-2020 i.e. Ex.PW-1/2 reflects only income from house property and no income is reflected MACT No. 343/18 In respect of FIR No.: 54/2018 U/s: 279/338 IPC PS: Kotwali Digitally signed by Bali Ram Vs. Budh Ratan & Ors. POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.30 Page No. 20 of 42 15:51:00 +0530 from any other source. It is also noted here that despite having filed another ITR for the Assessment Year 2017-18 i.e. for the period prior to the accident, which also reflects no other income except income from house property, the Petitioner chose to not even rely on the same, and thus there is no evidence on record to prove that the Petitioner worked as a property dealer at the time of the accident.
49. That being so, the income of the Petitioner shall be considered as per the ITR itself as determination of income is to be made on the basis of ITR when available. Strength for this interpretation is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malarvizhi v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 4 SCC 228, wherein it was held that:
"We are in agreement with the High Court that the determination must proceed on the basis of the income tax return, where available. The income tax return is a statutory document on which reliance may be placed to determine the annual income of the deceased."
(Emphasis supplied)
50. Thus, the income of the Petitioner shall be considered to be ₹4,94,814/- (after deducting the income tax (₹15,524/-) from the gross income of the Petitioner (₹5,10,338/-), and thus the monthly income of the Petitioner comes to be ₹41,234.50/- (₹4,94,814/- divided by 12).
51. Be that as it may, it still needs to be borne in mind that as the Petitioner has not brought on record any documentary evidence even in the form of any documents of any property transaction facilitated by him, not has he examined any person whose MACT No. 343/18 In respect of FIR No.: 54/2018 U/s: 279/338 IPC PS: Kotwali Digitally signed by Bali Ram Vs. Budh Ratan & Ors. POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 21 of 42 AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.30 15:51:06 +0530 property transaction was facilitated, to prove his occupation as a property dealer, and as per his own ITR, there was only rental income of the Petitioner. No evidence has been led by the Petitioner as to his rental income/ income from property having reduced due to his hospitalization and thus, there is no evidence has come on record as to grant any compensation towards any loss of earning during the period of treatment, and thus no amount is granted to the Petitioner under this head.
52. In respect of the loss of future earnings, it is noted that as per the disability certificate i.e. Ex.PW-2/1 issued by AIIMS, New Delhi, the Petitioner has 40% disability as his assessment on IDEAS for quantifying neuro-psychological disability had yielded a score of 08.
53. 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 MACT No. 343/18 Digitally signed In respect of FIR No.: 54/2018 U/s: 279/338 IPC PS: Kotwali by POOJA AGGARWAL POOJA Bali Ram Vs. Budh Ratan & Ors. AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.30 15:51:16 Page No. 22 of 42 +0530 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.
54. It is has been further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors., (2011) 1 SCC 34 that:
"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 40% of all his four limbs, it is not the same as 40% 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 MACT No. 343/18 Digitally signed In respect of FIR No.: 54/2018 U/s: 279/338 IPC PS: Kotwali by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL Bali Ram Vs. Budh Ratan & Ors. AGGARWAL Date: Page No. 23 of 42 2026.01.30 15:51:21 +0530 after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that 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 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) MACT No. 343/18 In respect of FIR No.: 54/2018 U/s: 279/338 IPC PS: Kotwali Bali Ram Vs. Budh Ratan & Ors. POOJA Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 24 of 42 AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.30 15:51:26 +0530
55. In the present case, PW2 Dr Sweta Kedia has categorically testified that though the Petitioner can do his self care independently, he requires some assistance in social interaction and communication which means he cannot talk fluently and he would require assistance in social interaction and communication throughout his life with no possibility of recovery. During her cross-examination, she has also testified that occasionally he would have difficulty in understanding the question and giving proper reply and has elucidated the meaning of social interaction through an example testifying that the Petitioner may not be able to understand how to attend to a guest properly. No further evidence has been brought on record by the Petitioner in respect of his functional disability.
56. However, it cannot be lost sight of that the ITR of the Petitioner reflects income from house property, and it can reasonably be expected that some social interaction would be required to be made by the Petitioner to continue the said source of income with the prospective users, but as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident, he would be unable to do so to the same degree as he could prior to the accident. Hence, keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by the Petitioner and his source of income as proved, his functional disability is taken to be 20% in relation to the whole body.
57. In respect of the loss of future income on account of permanent disability, it is noted that as the time of the accident i.e. on MACT No. 343/18 In respect of FIR No.: 54/2018 U/s: 279/338 IPC PS: Kotwali Bali Ram Vs. Budh Ratan & Ors. Page No. 25 of 42 Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.30 15:51:35 +0530 14.02.2018, the Petitioner was aged about 56 years as his date of birth is reflected as 14.12.1961 in his Aadhar card filed at the time of the recording of his financial statement, and even in his earlier Aadhar card i.e. Ex. PW-1/1, his year of birth is reflected as 1961.
58. His notional income has already been assessed to be ₹41,234.50/- per month at the time of the accident. 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, 10% of the established income is to be added to the monthly income towards future prospects, if the injured is aged between 50 to 60 years. That being so, an amount of ₹4,123.45/- shall be added to the notional monthly income, and thus the monthly income of the Petitioner inclusive of the future prospects comes to be ₹45,357.95/- and the annual income comes to be ₹5,44,295.40/- (i.e. ₹45,357.95/- x 12).
59. Further, as the Petitioner was aged about 56 years at the time of the accident, a multiplier of 9 shall be applicable (Ref: Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121) and therefore, the notional income of the Petitioner comes to be ₹48,98,658.60/- (i.e. ₹5,44,295.40/- x 9).
MACT No. 343/18 Digitally signed In respect of FIR No.: 54/2018 U/s: 279/338 IPC PS: Kotwali POOJA by POOJA AGGARWAL Bali Ram Vs. Budh Ratan & Ors. AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.30 Page No. 26 of 4215:51:41 +0530
60. As the functional disability of the Petitioner has been taken to 20%, the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability caused to the Petitioner arising out of the accident comes to be ₹9,79,732/- (rounded off from ₹9,79,731.72/-) (i.e.20% of the notional income) and the Petitioner is awarded the same.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
61. The Petitioner has not led any evidence as to any future treatment expenses and no other evidence has been brought on record by him as to any foreseeable medical expenses arising in the future due to the injury sustained by him in the accident. He has not relied upon any medical bills subsequent to 29.04.2019 even at the time of recording of his evidence in 2025. That being so, 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.
62. In respect of the damages under this head, it is noted that the factum of the Petitioner having sustained injuries resulting in 40% neuro-psychological disability already stands proved. Further, as per the treatment documents placed on record by the Petitioner, he remained under treatment for about 1 year and 8 months after the accident. Due to the nature of injuries and considering the age of the Petitioner 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 MACT No. 343/18 In respect of FIR No.: 54/2018 U/s: 279/338 IPC PS: Kotwali Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL Bali Ram Vs. Budh Ratan & Ors. POOJA AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.30 Page No. 27 of 42 15:51:47 +0530 ₹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).
63. In the present case, in view of the injuries sustained by the Petitioner due to the accident resulting in disability, 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 ₹25,000/- is awarded to the Petitioner towards loss of amenities.
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
64. No evidence has been brought on record by the Petitioner to show as to whether there is any loss of expectation of life due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. That being so, no amount is awarded to the Petitioner under this head.
65. For the sake of convenience, the amount as awarded to the Petitioner in respect of issue no.2 is summarized as under:-
S. No. HEAD AMOUNT
1. Treatment /medicine expenses ₹7,49,811/-
2. Hospitalization expenses
3. Special Diet ₹30,000/-
4. Transport/conveyance ₹30,000/-
5. Misc Expenses (Attendant ₹35,000/-
charges)
6. Loss of earning during NIL hospitalization MACT No. 343/18 In respect of FIR No.: 54/2018 U/s: 279/338 IPC PS: Kotwali Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL Bali Ram Vs. Budh Ratan & Ors. AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.30 Page No. 28 of 42 15:51:52 +0530
7. Loss of future earnings on ₹9,79,732/-
account of permanent (rounded off)
disability
8. Damages for pain, suffering ₹50,000/-
and trauma as a consequence of the injuries
9. Loss of amenities ₹25,000/-
10. Loss of expectation of life NIL TOTAL ₹18,99,543/-
66. During the course of final arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No. 4/ Insurance Company has argued that the Petitioner had sustained injuries due to his own negligence while driving his motorcycle without helmet contributing to the accident, and hence contributory negligence on his part be deducted while calculating the compensation.
67. In respect of this argument, it is noted that the Respondent No.4/ insurance company led no evidence to prove that the Petitioner was not wearing any helmet at the time of the accident, nor it could elicit any admission from the Petitioner in respect of the same during his cross-examination, as the Petitioner categorically denied the suggestion that he was not wearing any helmet.
68. Thus, in the absence of any evidence having been brought on record as to the Petitioner not wearing any helmet at the time of the accident, the very factum of the Petitioner not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident remains unproved, and no deduction towards contributory negligence on this ground is MACT No. 343/18 In respect of FIR No.: 54/2018 U/s: 279/338 IPC PS: Kotwali Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL Bali Ram Vs. Budh Ratan & Ors. AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.30 Page No. 29 of 42 15:52:04 +0530 warranted or made out. Thus, the argument as raised by the insurance company is rejected.
69. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No. 4/ Insurance Company had also argued that 30% of the compensation be deducted towards contributory negligence as he did not possess any valid driving licence. However, there is no merit in this argument either as it is noted that there is no evidence on record as to the Petitioner driving his own vehicle without any Driving Licence.
70. Be that as it may, even if for the sake of arguments it is assumed that he was so driving his vehicle, even then it was for the Respondents to bring on record evidence to prove that he was driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner which contributed to the accident, and the mere factum of him not having or him not having placed on record his driving licence would not lead to any inference of contributory negligence, as driving without licence would be a separate offence.
71. Strength for this interpretation is drawn from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudhir Kumar Rana v. Surinder Singh, (2008) 12 SCC 436, wherein it has been held:
"9. If a person drives a vehicle without a licence, he commits an offence. The same, by itself, in our opinion, may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the accident. It has been held by the courts below that it was the driver of the mini-truck which was being driven rashly and negligently. It is one thing to say that the appellant was not possessing any licence but no finding of fact has been arrived at that he was driving the two-wheeler rashly and negligently. If he was not driving rashly and negligently which contributed to the accident, we fail to see as to how, only because he MACT No. 343/18 In respect of FIR No.: 54/2018 U/s: 279/338 IPC PS: Kotwali Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA Bali Ram Vs. Budh Ratan & Ors. AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.30 Page No. 30 of 42 15:52:09 +0530 was not having a licence, he would be held to be guilty of contributory negligence."
(Emphasis supplied)
72. 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 21.04.2018 and the rate of interest of fixed deposits in Nationalized banks has fluctuated several times 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 21.04.2018 till the date of the award. The amount of interim award, if any, be deducted from the above amount, if the same has already been paid to the Petitioner.
Liability
73. In the case at hand, it is not in dispute that the offending vehicle was insured with the Respondent No.4/insurance company at the time of the accident. It is also not in dispute that at the time of the accident, the vehicle stood registered in the name of the Respondent No.2 as per the vehicle details issued by RTA, Gurgaon, annexed in the chargesheet filed along with the DAR. It is also not in dispute that vehicle was being driven by the Respondent No.1 at the time of the accident.
MACT No. 343/18In respect of FIR No.: 54/2018 U/s: 279/338 IPC PS: Kotwali Digitally signed by POOJA Bali Ram Vs. Budh Ratan & Ors. POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
Page No. 31 of 422026.01.30 15:52:15 +0530
74. The Respondent No.1 being the driver and principal tortfeasor; and Respondent No.2 being registered 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.4 at the time of accident and the Respondent No.4/ Insurance Company has not raised/proved any statutory defence in denial of their liability, hence, the Respondent No.4 shall be liable to pay the compensation amount to the Petitioner.
75. Issue No. 2 and 3 are decided accordingly.
Disbursement/ Release
76. As per the Financial Statement of Petitioner, his monthly expenses are approximately ₹50,000/- to ₹60,000/- 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.MACT No. 343/18
In respect of FIR No.: 54/2018 U/s: 279/338 IPC PS: Kotwali POOJA Digitally signed by POOJA Bali Ram Vs. Budh Ratan & Ors. AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.30 Page No. 32 of 42 15:52:21 +0530
(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."
77. 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 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 MACT No. 343/18 In respect of FIR No.: 54/2018 U/s: 279/338 IPC PS: Kotwali Digitally signed by POOJA Bali Ram Vs. Budh Ratan & Ors. POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 33 of 42 AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.30 15:52:26 +0530 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)
78. 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.
79. After considering the financial statement of the Petitioner, it is directed that upon realization of the awarded amount of ₹30,07,214/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Fourteen only) (inclusive of interest of ₹11,07,671/-), a sum of ₹10,07,214/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Fourteen only) shall be released to him immediately in his Bank Account No. 15470110074503, with UCO Bank, Dr Mukherjee Nagar Branch, Delhi, IFSC Code UCBA0001547 as furnished by him at the time of recording of his financial statement.
80. The balance amount of ₹20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only) shall be put in monthly fixed deposits in his name in his account as mentioned above of equal amount of ₹40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 50 months respectively, with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & Digitally MACT No. 343/18 signed by POOJA In respect of FIR No.: 54/2018 U/s: 279/338 IPC PS: Kotwali POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
Bali Ram Vs. Budh Ratan & Ors. 2026.01.30 Page No. 34 of 42 15:52:32 +0530 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.
81. The Respondent No.4/Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd is directed to deposit the awarded sum of ₹30,07,214/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Fourteen only) inclusive of interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of petition i.e. w.e.f. 21.04.2018 till the date of the award within 30 days by way of NEFT or RTGS mode directly in the account of the Petitioner as mentioned in the Para No. 80 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).
82. 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 is 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 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.
MACT No. 343/18 Digitally signed
by POOJA
In respect of FIR No.: 54/2018 U/s: 279/338 IPC PS: Kotwali POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
Bali Ram Vs. Budh Ratan & Ors. 2026.01.30
15:52:38 +0530
Page No. 35 of 42
83. A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of cost.
84. 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.
85. 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)].
86. 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.
87. 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.
MACT No. 343/18 Digitally signed In respect of FIR No.: 54/2018 U/s: 279/338 IPC PS: Kotwali by POOJA AGGARWAL POOJA AGGARWAL Date:
Bali Ram Vs. Budh Ratan & Ors. 2026.01.30 15:52:42 +0530 Page No. 36 of 42
88. 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).
89. 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 02.03.2026.
Announced in the Open Court Digitally signed
by POOJA
AGGARWAL
today i.e. on 30th January, 2026 POOJA
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.30
15:52:48
+0530
(POOJA AGGARWAL)
Presiding Officer, MACT-02 (Central) Tis Hazari, Delhi MACT No. 343/18 Digitally signed by In respect of FIR No.: 54/2018 U/s: 279/338 IPC PS: Kotwali POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL Bali Ram Vs. Budh Ratan & Ors. AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.30 Page No. 37 of 4215:52:55 +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 : 14.02.2018
2. Name of the injured : Bali Ram
3. Age of the injured :56 years (at the time of accident)
4. Occupation of injured : Income from House Property
5. Income of the injured : Assessed on the basis of ITR
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured : As per record
8. Period of hospitalisation : 14.02.2018 to 16.03.2018 27.03.2018 to 30.03.2018
9. Whether any permanent disability? If yes, give details : Yes, 40% neuro-psychological disability
10. Computation of Compensation S.No. Heads Awarded by Claims Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on treatment ₹7,49,811/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance ₹30,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet ₹30,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant ₹35,000/-
(v) Cost of artificial limb N.A. (vi) Loss of earning capacity N.A. (vii) Loss of income N.A. MACT No. 343/18 In respect of FIR No.: 54/2018 U/s: 279/338 IPC PS: Kotwali Digitally signed by POOJA Bali Ram Vs. Budh Ratan & Ors. Page No. 38 of 42 AGGARWAL POOJA AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.30 15:53:01 +0530 (viii) Any other loss which may N.A. 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 ₹25,000/- (iv) Disfiguration (v) Loss of marriage prospects (vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, N.A. hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability 40% Neuro-
assessed and nature of psychological
disability as permanent or disability
temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of N.A.
expectation of life span on
account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning 20%
capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future Income - ₹9,79,732/-
(Income × % Earning Capacity (rounded off) x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION ₹18,99,543/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED 7.5% p.a.
16. Interest amount up to the date ₹11,07,671/-MACT No. 343/18
In respect of FIR No.: 54/2018 U/s: 279/338 IPC PS: Kotwali Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL Bali Ram Vs. Budh Ratan & Ors. Page No. 39 of 42 POOJA AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.30 15:53:06 +0530 of award (rounded off)
17. Total amount including interest ₹30,07,214/-
18. Award amount released ₹10,07,214/-
19. Award amount kept in FDRs ₹20,00,000/-
20. Mode of disbursement of the Mentioned in the award amount to the award claimant(s)
21. Next date for compliance of the 02.03.2026 award
1. Prepared as per award dated 30.01.2026.
2. A separate file was ordered to be prepared by the Nazir with directions to put up the same on 02.03.2026.Digitally signed
by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.30 15:53:12 +0530 (POOJA AGGARWAL) Presiding Officer, MACT-02 (Central) Tis Hazari, Delhi 30.01.2026 MACT No. 343/18 Digitally signed In respect of FIR No.: 54/2018 U/s: 279/338 IPC PS: Kotwali POOJA by POOJA AGGARWAL Bali Ram Vs. Budh Ratan & Ors. AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.30 15:53:17 Page No. 40 of 42 +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 14.02.2018
2. Date of filing of Form-I - First Accident N.A. Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the victim(s) N.A.
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the Driver N.A.
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Owner N.A.
6. Date of filing of the Form-V-Interim N.A. Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form-VIB N.A. from the Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - Detailed 21.04.2018 Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or deficiency N.A. 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. 343/18 Digitally signed In respect of FIR No.: 54/2018 U/s: 279/338 IPC PS: Kotwali POOJA by POOJA AGGARWAL Bali Ram Vs. Budh Ratan & Ors. AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.30 15:53:23 Page No. 41 of 42 +0530
14. Date of the award 30.01.2026
15. Whether the petitioner (s) was/were directed Yes to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which claimant(s) 21.04.2018 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 the 27.11.2025 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 H.No. 640, Claimant(s). Dr.Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi.
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank Yes 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:
2026.01.30
15:53:28 +0530
(POOJA AGGARWAL)
Presiding Officer, MACT-02 (Central) Tis Hazari, Delhi 30.01.2026 MACT No. 343/18 Digitally signed by In respect of FIR No.: 54/2018 U/s: 279/338 IPC PS: Kotwali POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL Bali Ram Vs. Budh Ratan & Ors. AGGARWAL Date:2026.01.30 Page No. 42 of 42
15:53:34 +0530