Delhi District Court
Balbir Singh vs Vijay Kumar on 4 April, 2025
MACP No. 427/19; FIR No. 19/19; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.04.2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA MANCHANDA,
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MAC Petition No. 427/19
CNR/UID No. DLNT01-006490-2019
Sh. Balvir Singh,
S/o Sh. Nasib Chand,
R/o Village Jhangrian,
PO Jhaj, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib,
District. Rupnagar,
Punjab.
(Injured)
......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh. Vijay Kumar,
S/o Sh. Sita Ram,
R/o H.No. 222,
Bharola, Azadpur,
Delhi.
(Driver)
2. Sh. Rinku Saroj,
S/o Sh. Sita Ram,
R/o H.No. 222,
Bharola, Azadpur,
Delhi.
(Registered Owner)
3. Go Digit General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Nehru Place, Delhi.
(Insurer)
...............Respondents
Balvir Singh Vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors. Page 1 of 29
MACP No. 427/19; FIR No. 19/19; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.04.2025 Date of Institution : 30.07.2019 Date of Arguments : 04.04.2025 Date of Decision : 04.04.2025 APPEARANCES:
Sh. Vijay Upadhyay, Ld. Counsel for petitioner. Sh. Samuel Mashih, Ld. Counsel for driver and owner. Sh. A.K. Singh, Ld. Counsel for insurance co.
Petition under Section 166 & 140 of M.V. Act, 1988 for grant of compensation AWARD
1. The petitioner is seeking compensation in the wake of Detailed Accident Report (DAR) filed by police corresponding to the investigation carried out in case FIR No. 19/19 U/s 279/338 IPC registered at PS. Alipur, with regard to Motor Vehicular Accident which occurred on 20.01.2019 at about 4:00 PM, Near Nangli Puna underpass in front of Shiva Motors, Delhi, involving Champion bearing registration no. DL1LQ-5273 (offending vehicle) being driven by respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner.
DAR filed by police, was treated as claim petition under Section 166(4) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'MV Act').
2. According to DAR, on 20.01.2019, the petitioner was riding his motorcycle no. DL6S-AR-5649 and was proceeding from Badli to Alipur. At about 4:00 PM, when he crossed the underpass of Nangli Poona and reached in front of Shiva Motors, one Champion bearing registration no.
Balvir Singh Vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors. Page 2 of 29MACP No. 427/19; FIR No. 19/19; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.04.2025 DL1LQ-5273 which was being driven by its driver/respondent no. 1 at a very high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, came from wrong side and hit the aforesaid motorcycle of petitioner with a great force, due to which petitioner alongwith his motorcycle fell down on the road and sustained multiple grievous injuries. Thereafter, petitioner was taken to Max Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, where he was medically examined. A case u/s. 279/337 IPC was registered at PS. Alipur vide FIR No. 19/19 on the statement of petitioner. The offending vehicle was found to be owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with Go Digit General Insurance Ltd /respondent no. 3 during the period in question.
3. In their joint written statement, the respondents no.1 & 2 have raised preliminary objections that alleged accident was occurred due to rash, negligent and high speed driving of motorcycle without caring of red light signal by the petitioner/injured. On the basis of these averments, they have prayed for dismissal of present DAR.
4. The insurance company had filed its legal offer, whereby it offered to pay a sum of Rs. 98,000/- plus actual medical expenses as compensation towards full and final satisfaction for the claim raised by petitioner for the injuries suffered by him in the accident in question which was not acceptable to him.
Balvir Singh Vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors. Page 3 of 29MACP No. 427/19; FIR No. 19/19; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.04.2025
5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 17.01.2020 passed by my Ld. Predecessor:-
1. Whether the injured Balbir Singh suffered injuries in road traffic accident on 20.01.2019 at 16:00 PM, near Nangli Puna underpass in front of Shiva Motors, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS. Alipur due to rashness and negligence on the part of Sh. Vijay Kumar who was was driving Tempo Mahindra Champion bearing registration no. DL1LQ-5273, owned by Rinku Saroj and insured with Go Digit General Insurance Limited? OPP
2. Whether the injured is entitled to any compensation if so to what amount and from whom?
OPP.
3. Relief.
6. In support of his claim, the petitioner has examined two witnesses i.e. himself as PW1 and PW2 Dr. Simarjot Singh Bedi, Medical Officer (Ortho), Civil Hospital, Rupnagar and his evidence was closed vide order dated 05.07.2023. On the other hand, the resepondent no. 1 & 2 have examined only one witness i.e., R1W1 Sh. Vijay Kumar (respondent no. 1 herein) and their evidence was closed vide order dated 06.05.2024. Insurance company had not examined any witness in its evidence and its evidence was closed vide order dated 20.11.2023.
7. This Tribunal has carefully perused DAR petition, evidence led by parties has been duly appreciated. All documents and material relied upon Balvir Singh Vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors. Page 4 of 29 MACP No. 427/19; FIR No. 19/19; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.04.2025 & proved considered. Arguments addressed by respective counsels considered. Legal position, both statutory and binding applicable precedents, have been appreciated.
Issue No. 18. The onus to prove the aforesaid issue was placed on the petitioner. To prove the said issue, the injured examined himself as PW1 by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A). In his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A), injured has deposed on the lines of averments made in the DAR petition. He has relied upon the following documents:-
S.No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Medical bills Ex. PW1/1(Colly)
2. Original discharge summary Ex. PW1/2(Colly)
3. Medical Certificate Ex. PW1/3(Colly)
4. Copy of Disability Ex. PW1/4(OSR)
Certificate
5. Copy of his Aadhaar Card Ex.PW1/5(OSR)
6. Copy of his PAN Card Ex.PW1/6(OSR)
7. Copies of his educational Ex.PW1/7(OSR)
documents
8. DAR Ex.PW1/8(Colly)
9. PW1 injured in his testimony by way of affidavit (PW1/A) has deposed on the lines of DAR petition and has testified that on 20.01.2019, he was riding his motorcycle no. DL6S-AR-5649 and was proceeding from Balvir Singh Vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors. Page 5 of 29 MACP No. 427/19; FIR No. 19/19; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.04.2025 Badli to Alipur. He further deposed that at about 4:00 PM, when he crossed the underpass of Nangli Poona and reached in front of Shiva Motors, one Champion bearing registration no. DL1LQ-5273 which was being driven by its driver/respondent no. 1 at a very high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, came from wrong side and hit his motorcycle with a great force, due to which he alongwith his motorcycle fell down on the road and sustained multiple grievous injuries. He further deposed that he was taken to Max Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, where he was medically examined. He categorically deposed that the accident took place due to sole rash, negligent and zigzag driving of offending vehicle by its driver.
10. During his cross-examination on behalf of driver and owner, he deposed that there was a bus stop where the accident in question occurred. He denied the suggestion that he was overtaking a car and in that process of overtaking, he rammed his vehicle against the vehicle of respondent no. 1. He further denied the suggestion that he himself collided with the offending vehicle. He denied the suggestion that offending vehicle was stationary at the time of accident. He further denied the suggestion that the accident in question occurred due to his sole negligence. During his cross-examination on behalf of insurance company, he deposed that he was not having driving licence on that day. He further deposed that he lost his driving licence in the accident in question. He denied the suggestion that he had taken a false plea that his driving licence had been lost in the accident. He denied the suggestion that he was not having valid and effective driving licence at the Balvir Singh Vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors. Page 6 of 29 MACP No. 427/19; FIR No. 19/19; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.04.2025 time of accident also. He denied the suggestion that accident in question occurred due to his own negligence.
11. It is evident from the testimony of PW1 that the respondents could not impeach his testimony through litmus test of cross-examination and said witness is found to have successfully withstood the test of cross- examination. Even otherwise, PW1 himself is the injured having sustained injuries due to the accident in question. Moreover, FIR No. 19/19 (which is part of DAR) is shown to have been registered on the statement of petitioner himself on the date of accident itself i.e., 20.01.2019. The contents of said FIR would show that the complainant/petitioner has disclosed therein the same sequence of facts leading to the accident as deposed by him as PW1 in his evidence. Hence, there is no possibility of any false implication of driver of offending vehicle or false involvement of the said vehicle in this case. On the other hand, none of the respondents examined any witness in order to rebut the testimony of PW1 during the course of inquiry. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve his uncontroverted testimony on the point of accident in question being caused by respondent no. 1 while driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
12. On the other hand, the respondents no. 1 & 2 have examined one witness i.e., R1W1 Sh. Vijay Kumar (respondent no. 1 herein) during the course of trial. He deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. R1W1/A) that alleged accident was occurred due to rash, negligent and high speed Balvir Singh Vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors. Page 7 of 29 MACP No. 427/19; FIR No. 19/19; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.04.2025 driving of motorcycle by petitioner and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. During his cross-examination on behalf of petitioner, he admitted that one criminal case was registered against him for the accident in question and he was facing trial of the said case in the concerned MM Court. He further deposed that he had not filed any complaint regarding his false implication in the present case before any concerned authority. He denied the suggestion that the accident in question had taken place due to his rash and negligent driving of alleged offending vehicle.
13. Ld. Counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the petitioner had failed to prove negligence on the part of respondent no. 1 in causing the accident. For this purpose, he has heavily relied upon the testimony of R1W1 as discussed above. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for petitioner argued that the testimony of R1W1 should not be believed as he is an interested witness. He further submitted that FIR was registered against respondent no. 1. Moreover, the respondent no. 1 has not filed any complaint before any authority regarding his false implication in the criminal case. The petitioner has examined himself as PW1 and proved the documents like FIR and Chargesheet filed in the present case to the effect that accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent no. 1. There was no reason for them to depose falsely against the respondents in this case. Furthermore, it is quite obvious that R1W1 has taken the aforesaid plea in order to escape the penal consequences as criminal case is pending trial against respondent no. 1 for causing the accident.
Balvir Singh Vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors. Page 8 of 29MACP No. 427/19; FIR No. 19/19; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.04.2025
14. The facts of the case, arguments of the Ld. Counsels, evidence, material on record and duly verified documents of the criminal case, have been carefully examined and scrutinized. Respondent no. 1 namely Sh. Vijay Kumar has been charge sheeted for offences punishable U/s. 279/338 IPC by the investigating agency after arriving at the conclusion on the basis of investigation carried out by it that the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle.
15. It is relevant to mention here that copy of MLC (which is part of DAR) of petitioner filed would show that he had been taken to Max Hospital, Delhi with alleged history of RTA on the date of accident itself i.e., on 20.01.2019. On his local examination, he was found to have sustained multiple injuries as mentioned therein. The said injuries are consistent with the injuries which are sustained in motor vehicular accident. Again, there is no challenge to the said document from the side of respondents including insurance company.
16. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the petitioner has been able to prove his case on the basis of preponderence of probabilities, that he sustained injuries in road accident which took place on 20.01.2019 at about 4:00 PM, Near Nangli Puna underpass in front of Shiva Motors, Delhi, due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent no. 1. Thus, issue no. 1 is decided accordingly.
Balvir Singh Vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors. Page 9 of 29MACP No. 427/19; FIR No. 19/19; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.04.2025 ISSUE NO. 2.
17. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 enjoins upon the Claims 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.
18. It has been duly established that petitioner sustained injuries as per his MLC in the road accident which took place on 20.01.2019 at about 4:00 PM, Near Nangli Puna underpass in front of Shiva Motors, Delhi, due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent no. 1.
19. The intent and objective of the Beneficial Legislation is to grant equitable compensation to the vulnerable victims of road accidents and dynamic law has evolved towards grant of just and fair quantum of awards and has brought consistency and uniformity towards the desired goal. The Hon'ble Apex Court in "Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation" (2009) 6 SCC 121, which was affirmed by a bench of three Hon'ble Judges in Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65, held 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 Balvir Singh Vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors. Page 10 of 29 MACP No. 427/19; FIR No. 19/19; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.04.2025 relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit.
17. Assessment of compensation though involving certain hypothetical considerations, should nevertheless be objective. Justice and justness emanate from equality in treatment, consistency and thoroughness in adjudication, and fairness and uniformity in the decision making process and the decisions. While it may not be possible to have mathematical precision or identical awards, in assessing compensation, same or similar facts should lead to awards in the same range. When the factors/inputs are the same, and the formula/legal principles are the same, consistency and uniformity, and not divergence and freakiness, should be the result of adjudication to arrive at just compensation..."
20. These guiding principles for assessment of "just and reasonable compensation" have been torch bearer in injury cases also as laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in III (2007), ACC 676 titled as Oriental Insurance Co,. Ltd., Vs. Vijay Kumar Mittal & Ors, wherein it has been held:-
"10. The possession of one's own body is the first and most valuable all human rights and while awarding compensation for bodily injuries this primary element is to be kept in mind. Bodily injury is to be treated and varies on account of gravity of bodily injury. Though it is impossible to equate money with human suffering, agony and personal deprivation, the Court and Tribunal should Balvir Singh Vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors. Page 11 of 29 MACP No. 427/19; FIR No. 19/19; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.04.2025 make an honest and serious attempt to award damages so far as money can compensate the loss. Regard must be given to the gravity and degree of deprivation as well as the degree of awareness of the deprivation. Damages awarded in personal injury cases must be substantial and not token damages....."
11. The general principle which should govern the assessment of damages in persons injury cases is that the Court should award to injured persons such a sum as will put him in the same position as he would have been in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained injuries".
21. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in further development of the legal position for grant of reasonable and fair compensation, has pronounced guiding parameters that "the compensation should be just and is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly or a pittance". Reliance is placed on 2012 (8) SLT 676 titled K. Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The golden principles for assessment of adequate compensation to victims of road accident have been appreciated by the full bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in 2017 (13) SCALE 12 : 2017 XI AD (SC) 113 titled National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., wherein it has been held:-
".....The Tribunal and the Courts have to bear in mind that the basic principle lies in pragmatic computation which is in proximity to reality. It is a well expected norm that money can not substitute a life lost but an effort has to be made for grant of just compensation having uniformity of approach. There Balvir Singh Vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors. Page 12 of 29 MACP No. 427/19; FIR No. 19/19; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.04.2025 has to be a balance between the two extremes, that is, a windfall and the pittance, a bonanza and the modicum....."
22. Accordingly, the entitlement of petitioner to just compensation is being assessed in the background of well settled parameters and guidelines as discussed herein-above.
MEDICAL EXPENSES
23. The petitioner has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit(Ex. PW1/A) that after the accident, he was taken to Max Hospital, Delhi, where he was medically examined. He further deposed that he had sustained grievous injuries i.e., compound fracture, proximal tibia L 3C, fracture radius closed L, amputation of ring and middle finger through middle phalanx, FUC of crush injury knee left. He further deposed that he remained admitted in the hospital from 20.01.2019 to 25.01.2019 and again admitted in Dr. Surjit Singh Super Speciality Hospital from 26.01.2019 to 07.05.2019, Ropar, Punjab. He further deposed that he had spent about Rs. 10,00,000/- on his treatment. During his cross-examination on behalf of respondents, he deposed that he remained admitted in Max Hospital, Shalimar Bagh from 20.01.2019 to 25.01.2019 and thereafter, he was referred to Dr. Surjit Singh Hospital, Punjab, where he remained admitted from 26.01.2019 to 30.01.2019. He denied the suggestion that his medical bills were false and Balvir Singh Vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors. Page 13 of 29 MACP No. 427/19; FIR No. 19/19; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.04.2025 fabricated. He denied the suggestion that he had not spent Rs. 10,00,000/- on his medical treatment.
24. It is relevant to note that the injured has relied upon medical bills (which are Ex. PW1/1 colly) to the tune of Rs. 6,53,280/-. It is quite evident that the respondents have not disputed the authenticity and genuineness of the said medical bills during the course of inquiry. They have also not led any evidence in rebuttal so as to create any doubt on the genuineness of said bills. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 6,53,280/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
LOSS OF INCOME
25. PW1 has deposed that he was 44 years of age and was doing private job in Inland World Logistics Pvt. Ltd and was getting monthly salary of Rs. 20,000/-. He further deposed that due to this accident, he could not do his work from the date of accident i.e., 20.01.2019 till 26.09.2019. During his cross-examination by respondents, he remained admitted in the Max Hospital, Shalimar Bagh from 20.01.2019 to 25.01.2019. He further deposed that thereafter, he was referred to Dr. Surjit Singh Hospital, where he remained admitted from 26.01.2019 to 30.01.2019. He further deposed that he did not have any document to prove his employment and salary of Rs. 20,000/- per month at the time of accident. He further denied the suggestion that neither he was working nor earning anything at the time of accident.
Balvir Singh Vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors. Page 14 of 29MACP No. 427/19; FIR No. 19/19; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.04.2025
26. The treatment record i.e., Discharge Summary of Max Hospital (Ex. PW1/2 colly), of petitioner shows that he had suffered compound fracture proximal tibia L 3C, fracture radius closed L, amputation of ring and middle finger through the middle phalanx. As per discharge summary (Ex. PW1/2) of Dr. Surjit Singh Super Speciality Hospital, petitioner was again admitted in the said hospital on 26.01.2019 and was discharged on 30.01.2019. He was again admitted in the said hospital w.e.f., 26.04.2019 and was discharged on 07.05.2019. In the absence of any definite evidence being brought on record showing the actual period till which the petitioner had received medical treatment for the injuries sustained by him due to accident in question, it would necessarily involve some guess in assessing the loss of income. However, petitioner had filed medical certificate (Ex. PW1/3) wherein he had been advised 2 month's bed rest. It can not be overlooked that the petitioner had sustained compound fracture proximal tibia L 3C, fracture radius closed L, amputation of ring and middle finger through the middle phalanx as mentioned in his treatment record due to the accident. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and continuous treatment record filed on record, it is presumed that he would not have been able to work at least for a period of 6 months or so including his recovery period.
27. It may be noted here that no definite evidence whatsoever has been brought on record to prove monthly income of injured/petitioner at the time of accident in question in Delhi. Moreover, petitioner has also admitted in his cross-examination that he did not have any document to prove his Balvir Singh Vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors. Page 15 of 29 MACP No. 427/19; FIR No. 19/19; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.04.2025 employment and salary of Rs. 20,000/- per month at the time of accident. However, the petitioner has filed translated copy of his 10 th class report card. As per the said report card, he was failed in the said class. In the absence of any evidence regarding employment and earning of deceased and in view of educational qualification documents of petitioner, his loss of income has to be assessed while taking the income of an untrained person under Minimum Wages Act applicable in the State of Punjab during the period in question as petitioner has failed to file any document regarding his employment and earning in Delhi at the time of accident. The minimum wages of an untrained person were Rs. 8,451.95p per month as on the date of accident which is 02.01.2014. Thus, a sum of Rs. 50,711.70p (Rs. 8,451.95p x 6) is awarded in favour of petitioner under this head.
PAIN AND SUFFERING
28. For the purpose of ascertaining compensation against non- pecuniary heads, guidance is derived from ruling of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter titled as " Nathu Lal Vs. Sandeep Gulati & Ors." passed in appeal bearing no. MAC.APP 770/2011 decided on 21.05.12, has been held as under:-
"15. It is settled law that a particular amount cannot be fixed on pain and sufferings for all cases as is varies from case to case. Judicial notice can be taken on the fact that since the petitioner had got injuries/fracture as aforesaid, he mighthave suffered acute pain and sufferings owing to the said injuries. He might have also Balvir Singh Vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors. Page 16 of 29 MACP No. 427/19; FIR No. 19/19; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.04.2025 consumed heavy dose of anti-biotic etc. and also might have remained without movements of his body for a considerable period of time. In order to ascertain the pain and sufferings compensation, I am guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case Satya Narain v. Jai Kishan, FAO No.709/02, date of decision:
2.2.2007, Delhi High Court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog wherein it was held that:-"On account of pain and suffering, suffice would it be to note that it is difficult to measure pain and suffering in terms of a money value, However, compensation which has to be paid must bear some objectives co-relation with the pain and suffering. The objective facts relatable to pain and suffering would be:(a)Nature of injury.
(b)Body part affected.
(c)Duration of the treatment."
29. As already considered, the petitioner required treatment for about 6 months from the date of accident and remained incapacitated to resume his work of earnings for at least a period of 6 months owing to grievous injuries suffered in the road traffic accident. Apart from this, the petitioner is also shown to have sustained locomotor disability to the extent of 70% in relation to his left lower limb and amputation of middle finger and ring finger at DIP joint and the same was not likely to improve in future. Thus, he would have undergone great physical sufferings, inconvenience and mental trauma on account of the accident in question. Keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner, duration of treatment and permanent disability suffered by him, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- is considered reasonable towards pain & sufferings.
Balvir Singh Vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors. Page 17 of 29MACP No. 427/19; FIR No. 19/19; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.04.2025 LOSS OF GENERAL AMENITIES & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE
30. As already mentioned above, there is sufficient evidence on record to establish that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries in the accident. Apart from this, the petitioner is also shown to have sustained locomotor disability to the extent of 70% in relation to his left lower limb and amputation of middle finger and ring finger at DIP joint and the same was not likely to improve in future. Thus, he would not be able to enjoy general amenities of life after the accident in question and his quality of life has been definitely affected. In view of the nature of injuries suffered by him and his continued treatment for considerable period and the permanent disability suffered by him, I award a notional sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of general amenities and enjoyment of life to the petitioner.
CONVEYANCE, SPECIAL DIET & ATTENDANT CHARGES
31. It is further claimed that petitioner has spent considerable amount on his special diet, conveyance and attendant. It is relevant to note here that the petitioner has failed to lead any cogent evidence to prove the amount, if any spent on special diet, conveyance and attendant as aforesaid by him. At the same time, it cannot be overlooked that petitioner has sustained grievous injuries in the accident. Apart from this, the petitioner is also shown to have sustained locomotor disability to the extent of 70% in relation to his left lower limb and amputation of middle finger and ring finger Balvir Singh Vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors. Page 18 of 29 MACP No. 427/19; FIR No. 19/19; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.04.2025 at DIP joint and the same was not likely to improve in future. Thus, he would have taken special rich protein diet for his speedy recovery and would have also incurred considerable amount towards conveyance charges while commuting to the concerned hospital as OPD patient for his regular check up & follow up during the period of his medical treatment. He would have been definitely helped by some person either outsider or from his family, to perform his daily activities as also while visiting the hospital during the course of his medical treatment. There is no definite quantum of the expenses that has been proved by the claimant through any bills, transport expenses or receipts from any attendant. However, in view of the aforesaid detailed discussion, it is considered reasonable to award a sum of Rs. 20,000/-each for special diet and conveyance charges and a sum of Rs. 30,000/- for attendant charges to the petitioner under this head.
LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME
32. As already stated above, the petitioner is shown to have sustained locomotor disability to the extent of 70% in relation to his left lower limb and amputation of middle finger and ring finger at DIP joint and the same was not likely to improve in future. Same is quite evident from Disability Certificate dated 17.03.2021 (Ex. PW1/4) issued by Department of Empowerment of persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Goverment of India.
Balvir Singh Vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors. Page 19 of 29MACP No. 427/19; FIR No. 19/19; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.04.2025
33. As per the testimony of PW2 Dr. Simarjot Singh Bedi, Medical Officer (Ortho), Civil Hospital, Rupnagar, the petitioner was found to have suffered locomotor disability to the extent of 70% in relation to his left lower limb and amputation of middle finger and ring finger at DIP joint and the same was not likely to improve in future and thus, his re-assessment was not recommended. He further deposed that due to aforesaid disability suffered by the petitioner, he would have difficulty in sitting, squatting and cross-leg and can walk with the help of stick. During his cross-examination on behalf of insurance company, he admitted that no direction was issued from any court of Law for assessment of disability. He further deposed that the patient had approached regarding issuance of disability certificate. He admitted that he was not the treating doctor and he had only assessed the disability. He further deposed that the patient came to the hospital of his own and he was not referred by any Doctor or Authority for assessment of disability. He further deposed that he had assessed the disability individually and no Board was constituted for assessment of disability. He denied the suggestion that patient was known to him. He further denied the suggestion that he had issued manipulated disability certificate. He deposed that the patient can do the desk job. He denied the suggestion that the diasbility has been prepared in collusion with the injured person. He further denied the suggestion that petitioner did not have 70% disability as mentioned in the Disability Certificate.
Balvir Singh Vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors. Page 20 of 29MACP No. 427/19; FIR No. 19/19; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.04.2025
34. It is argued on behalf of petitioner that petitioner was doing private job at the time of accident. It is further argued that since the petitioner has suffered locomotor disability to the extent of 70% in relation to his left lower limb and amputation of middle finger and ring finger at DIP joint, he would never be able to do his work with same efficiency as he used to do prior to the accident and thus, the loss of earning capacity be taken as 100% in relation to whole body.
35. For the purpose of calculating functional disability of the petitioner in relation to whole body, it is relevant to discuss the relevant judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court as well as Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. In the judgment "Raj Kumar Vs. Nitin Kumar Goyal & Ors." (supra), injured had suffered 76% permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb and his functional disability with relation to whole body was taken as 40% by the Tribunal. However, in the appeal preferred by the injured before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the functional disability has been taken as 100% in relation to whole body. In the said judgment, petitioner/injured Ram Kumar has suffered 76% disability in relation to his left lower limb and he was labourer by profession and the disability suffered by him had considerable effect on his work of labourer.
36. In the case in hand, petitioner was stated to be doing private job at the time of accident and with permanent disability to the extent of 70% in relation to left lower limb, he can continue to work with the same avocation.
Balvir Singh Vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors. Page 21 of 29MACP No. 427/19; FIR No. 19/19; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.04.2025 However, the petitioner would definitely face difficulty in performing his duty of Supervisor with the same efficiency as he could do prior to the date of accident. In view of the above, I am not in agreement with the submission made by the counsel for petitioner in respect of taking of 100% functional disability of petitioner.
37. In case titled "Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain Vs. Regional Manager, U.P State Road, Civil Appeal Nos. 9070-9071 of 2022, decided on 09.12.2022, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold in para no. 16 as under:-
xxxx "16. The Appellant herein has suffered permanent disability of 70% and has an amputated right lower limb amongst other injuries. The High Court has wrongly taken the view that the Appellant has only suffered 35% functional disability. The Appellant is not a salaried person but is self-employed who manages his business. For the Appellant to be able to augment his income, he is most definitely required to move around. The Appellant can also not drive on his own, which hinders his mobility further. This proves that the functional disability of the Appellant will severely impact his earning capacity, and the 35% functional disability calculated by the High Court is incorrect in the facts and circumstances of the case and in our view the loss of future earning capacity must be calculated at 60%."
Xxxxx Balvir Singh Vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors. Page 22 of 29 MACP No. 427/19; FIR No. 19/19; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.04.2025
38. With regard to assessment of functional disability in the accident cases, I am guided by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., CIVIL APPEAL NO.8981 OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10383 of 2007) wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to held as under:
10. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent ability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical Balvir Singh Vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors. Page 23 of 29 MACP No. 427/19; FIR No. 19/19; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.04.2025 functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less.
39. Now coming back to the facts of present case it is noted that as per the case of petitioner, he was doing private job at the time of accident and he had suffered 70% permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb and amputation of middle finger and ring finger at DIP joint. PW-2 Dr. Simarjot Singh Bedi has deposed that the disability of the petitioner is permanent in nature and same is not likely to improve. It is pertinent to mention here that any type of work requires physical dexterity in limbs and digits to operate hand and power driven tools and equipment commonly used in the profession of fabrication, physical ability to lift, carry and ability to continually walk, stand, climb, stoop, bend, kneel, reach in all directions, etc. It may be noted here that as per the testimony of PW1, he was doing private job at the time of accident. It is quite obvious that for any profession, proper movement of both lower limbs are very necessary which is not possible in the case of petitioner due to the permanent disability suffered by him in the accident. The petitioner has suffered 70% permanent physical impairment in relation to his left lower limb, which is going to adversely affect his avocation. In view of case (supra), I am of the considered opinion that due to disability suffered(permanent physical impairment in relation to his right lower limb and shortening of right lower limb) in the present accident, the work efficiency of the petitioner will definitely affected to some extent.
Balvir Singh Vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors. Page 24 of 29MACP No. 427/19; FIR No. 19/19; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.04.2025 Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case including the nature of injuries sustained by petitioner, his functional disability is taken as 50% with regard to whole body.
40. In copy of Aadhaar Card (Ex. PW1/5) of petitioner, his date of birth is mentioned as 29.04.1974. The date of accident is 20.01.2019. Thus, the petitioner was aged about 45 years as on the date of accident. Hence, the appropriate multiplier would be 14 in view of judgment passed in case titled as "Sarla Verma Vs. DTC", 2009 ACJ 1298 SC. The monthly income of petitioner has been taken as Rs. 8,451.95p per month as discussed above. Thus, the loss of monthly future income would be Rs. 4,225.97p (Rs. 8451.95/- x 50/100). The total loss of future income would be Rs. 8,87,453.70p (Rs. 4,225.97 x 12 x 125/100 x 14). Thus, a sum of Rs. 8,87,453.70p is awarded in favour of petitioner under this head.
Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:-
1. Medical expenses Rs. 6,53,280/-
2. Loss of income Rs. 50,711.70
3. Pain and suffering Rs. 1,50,000/-
4. Loss of general amenities and Rs. 1,00,000/-
enjoyment of life
5. Conveyance, special diet and Rs. 70,000/-
attendant charges Balvir Singh Vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors. Page 25 of 29 MACP No. 427/19; FIR No. 19/19; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.04.2025
6. Loss of future income Rs. 8,87,453.70p Total Rs. 19,11,445.40p Rounded off to Rs. 19,11,000/-
41. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. Respondent no. 3/insurance company did not adduce any evidence as it had no statutory defence. It is nowhere the case of insurance company that any term or condition of insurance policy was breached/violated by insured. Rather, it had given legal offer in the present case which was not acceptable to the petitioner. Keeping in view the existence of valid insurance policy, respondent no. 3/insurance company becomes liable to pay the compensation amount, as insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured. Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO.3/RELIEF
42. In view of my finding on issues no. 1 & 2, I award a sum of Rs. 19,11,000/-(including interim award amount, if any) alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum w.e.f date of filing the claim petition i.e. 30.07.2019 till the date of its realization, in favour of petitioner and against the respondents. (Reliance placed on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Baby Raksha & Ors, MAC APP. No. 36/2023 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 21.04.2023).
Balvir Singh Vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors. Page 26 of 29MACP No. 427/19; FIR No. 19/19; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.04.2025 APPORTIONMENT
43. Statement of petitioner in terms of Clause 29 MCTAP was recorded on 07.10.2024. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the said statement, it is hereby ordered that out of the awarded amount, a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (since an approx amount of Rs. 6,53,000/- has already been spent by the petitioner on his medical treatment) shall be immediately released to the petitioner through his Bank account no. 43178745259, Rohini District Court Branch, Delhi, having IFSC Code SBIN0010323 and remaining amount alongwith interest amount be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 30,000/- each for a period of one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest
44. All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following conditions:-
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody.
However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
Balvir Singh Vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors. Page 27 of 29MACP No. 427/19; FIR No. 19/19; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.04.2025
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and /or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank alongwith the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause(g) above.
(i) The petitioner is directed to open a Motor Accident Claims Annuity (Term) Deposit Account (MACAD) in terms of order dated 07.12.2018 of Hon'ble Justice J.R. Midha in case titled as Rajesh Tyagi and Others Vs. Jaibir Singh and Others F.A.O No. 842/03 as per clause 31 of MCTAP and form VIII titled as Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme as directed in the said order.
(j) Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court branch is further directed to disburse the FD amount in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme account as directed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.18, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
Balvir Singh Vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors. Page 28 of 29MACP No. 427/19; FIR No. 19/19; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.04.2025
45. Respondent no. 3/Go Digit General Insurance Ltd. , being insurer of the offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the entire award amount alongwith interest in the aforesaid bank account of the claimant within 30 days as per above order, failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a for the period of delay. (Reliance is placed on latest judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled "Parminder Singh Vs. Honey Goyal & Ors.", S.L.P. (C) No. 4484 OF 2020, DOD:18.03.2025.)
46. In view of the above, concerned Manager of petitioner's bank is directed to release only Rs. 10,00,000/- to the petitioner, on completing necessary formalities as per rules. He is further directed to keep the remaining amount in fixed deposit in terms of aforesaid directions and send compliance report to this Court. Copy of the award be given dasti to the petitioners and also to counsel for the insurance company for compliance. Petitioner is also directed to provide copy of this award to his/her bank Manager for compliance. Form XVI & Form XVII in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A. Copy of order be also sent to concerned M.M and DLSA as per clause 31 and 32 of MCTAP.
Digitally signed by RICHA MANCHANDARICHA MANCHANDA Date:
Announced in the open 2025.04.04
14:38:05
Court on 04.04.2025 +0545
(RICHA MANCHANDA)
Judge MACT-2 (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
Balvir Singh Vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors. Page 29 of 29