Delhi District Court
Manjur Alam vs Gurpreet Singh on 26 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA, PRESIDING
OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
DLCT010020572024
MACT No. 104/2024
Manjur Alam
S/o Yunush Alam
R/o Flat No. 632, DDA Flats,
Badarpur, Delhi-110044
........Petitioner/claimant
Versus
1. Gurpreet Singh (Driver)
S/o Sh. Kartar Singh
R/o Village Sadiala
PS Vyas Distt Amritsar
2. Kulwant Kaur (Owner)
W/o Sh. Sukhdeep Singh
R/o Village Indrawal Tehsil
District Gurdaspur Punjab
3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
R.G. City Centre ISC
Block B, Lawrence Road,
New Delhi.
........Respondents
DATE OF FILING OF DAR : 12.02.2024
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 11.08.2025
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26.08.2025
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA 12:04:45
Date: 2025.08.26
+0530
MACT No.104/2024 Manjur Alam Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Page 1 of 31
JUDGMENT
1. The Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred as DAR) was filed in this case on 12.02.2024, with reference to FIR No.731/23, U/s 279/338 IPC, PS Kashmiri Gate, Delhi, in respect of grievous injuries, sustained by the petitioner Manjur Alam, in a road accident, on 14.11.2023, at about 03:45 PM at Ring Road near Sant Parmanand Hospital, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi. Subsequently, chargesheet was filed by the IO, against Gurpreet Singh, S/o Sh. Kartar Singh (hereinafter referred as Respondent no.1/R1/driver), for the alleged commission of offence U/s 279/338 IPC. The Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal, vide order dated 12.02.2024, treated the DAR as claim petition U/s 166(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'M.V.Act').
2. Brief facts of the case, as discernible from the DAR, including the documents annexed with the DAR, are that, on receiving the DD No.52A the information of accident dt.14.11.2023 was received by the IO and he reached at the spot, where he found Ct. Abhishek and two vehicles in an accidental condition. Thereafter, IO came to know that injured was taken to the Trauma Center Civil Lines. After leaving the Constable at the spot, IO went to the Hospital Civil Lines. Thereafter, IO collected the MLC from the hospital bearing No. 2874/23. Further, doctor declared the patient "fit for statement". Accordingly, IO recorded the statement of the injured in the hospital. Further, FIR was registered on the basis of statement of the injured, MLC u/s 279/337 IPC.
Digitally signedRUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.08.26 12:04:53 +0530 MACT No.104/2024 Manjur Alam Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Page 2 of 31
3. Thereafter, IO prepared site plan of the spot. IO had taken into custody both the accidental vehicles and deposited them in Malkhana and he also took the ownership of the offending vehicle and served the notice u/s 133 MV Act upon the owner of the offending vehicle. Upon this owner of the offending replied and produced the respondent no. 1 before the IO. Thereafter, owner said that he is person who is driving the offending vehicle. Further, IO interrogated the driver of the offending vehicle and he accepted that the accident was committed by him only and thereafter he was arrested & he was released on bail. IO got verified the documents of the offending vehicle. The same were found to be correct. Thereafter, IO got conducted the mechanical inspection of both the accidental vehicles. Thereafter, offending vehicle was released on superdari. Further, IO submitted the MLCs in the hospital for final opinion. It was found "grievous". Thereafter, IO changed the section from 337 IPC to 338 IPC. Thereafter, chargesheet was filed against the driver/R1- Gurpreet Singh, for the commission of offence U/s 279/338 IPC.
4. The respondents no. 1 & 2 appeared on the first date of hearing but none has appeared on their behalf since then. No written statement has been filed on their behalf. Legal offer was filed on behalf of the respondent no.3 but the same was not accepted by the petitioner.
ISSUES
5. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated 15.04.2024, this Tribunal framed the following issues: Digitally signed RUCHIKA SINGLA by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2025.08.26 12:05:01 +0530 MACT No.104/2024 Manjur Alam Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Page 3 of 31
1. Whether the petitioner/injured suffered grievous injuries in an accident that took place on 14.11.2023 at about 15:45 P.M. at Ring Road Near Sant Parmanand Hospital, Kashmere Gate, Delhi involving vehicle bearing registration No. PB 06V 6684 driven rashly and negligently by respondent no.1 Gurpreet Singh, owned by respondent no. 2 Smt. Kulwant Kaur and insured with The New India Assurance Company Limited?
OPP
2. Whether the petitioner/injured is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
OPP
3. Relief.
The respondents no. 1 & 2 did not appear and were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 14.05.2025. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned for PE.
Petitioners Evidence
6. The petitioner got himself examined as PW1, by way of evidence affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He has relied upon the documents which are as under:-
1. Copy of his Aadhar Card which is Ex. PW-1/1 (OSR).
2. Copy of his Pan Card which is Ex. PW-1/2 (OSR).
3. Photograph of his shop which is mentioned as Ex. PW-1/3 stands de-exhibited and now marked as Mark-A.
4. Computerised copy of the Udyog Registration Certificate which is Ex.PW-1/4.
5. His ITR for the Assessment Year 2018-2019 along with computation exhibited as Ex. PW-1/5 (Colly. 12 pages).Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.08.26 12:05:10 +0530 MACT No.104/2024 Manjur Alam Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Page 4 of 31
6. Copy of Registration Certificate of his motorcycle which is Ex. PW-1/6 (OSR).
7. Copies of Medical treatment record which is Ex.PW-1/7 (colly. 10 pages) (OSR).
8. Medical bills which are Ex. PW-1/8 (Colly. 7 bills). (OSR).
9. Copy of Aadhar Card of his wife Gajala which is Ex. PW-1/9 (OSR).
10. Copy of Birth Certificate of his daughter Mehak which is Ex.PW-1/10 (OSR).
11. Bill of repair of his motorcycle which is mentioned as Ex.PW-1/11 in my affidavit stands de-exhibited being photocopy and now marked as Mark-B.
12. DAR which is Ex. PW-1/12 (Colly.).
13. Copies of ceritificates of educational qualification which are Ex.PW-1/13 (Colly.) (OSR).
14. Copies of Experience Certificates which are Mark-C(Colly. 3 pages)
15. Copies of Gulf Training Certificate and Statement of marks which are Ex. PW-1/14 (OSR).
7. He was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3. Thereafter, PE was closed vide order dt. 14.05.2025. Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3 submitted that he did not wish to lead RE. Thus, RE was also closed vide order dt. 14.05.2025.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
8. This Tribunal has heard the final arguments as advanced by Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.08.26 12:05:18 +0530 MACT No.104/2024 Manjur Alam Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Page 5 of 31 Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3 and has carefully perused the record.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
9. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 1 to 3 and perused the record. My findings on the various issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1:
Whether the petitioner/injured suffered grievous injuries in an accident that took place on 14.11.2023 at about 15:45 P.M. at Ring Road Near Sant Parmanand Hospital, Kashmere Gate, Delhi involving vehicle bearing registration No. PB 06V 6684 driven rashly and negligently by respondent no.1 Gurpreet Singh, owned by respondent no. 2 Smt. Kulwant Kaur and insured with The New India Assurance Company Limited?
10. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that on 14.11.2023 at about 3.45 pm, when he was driving his motorcycle and reached at Ring Road near Sant Parmanand Hospital, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi, the offending vehicle being run by the respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner hit his motorcycle from behind due to which the petitioner fell down with his motorcycle and received injuries. The petitioner has entered into the witness box as PW-1 and reiterated these allegations on oath. The respondents no. 1 & 2 did not appear in the court since the first date of hearing and they were proceeded against exparte. Hence, the allegations Digitally signed RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.08.26 12:05:33 +0530 MACT No.104/2024 Manjur Alam Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Page 6 of 31 of the petitioner are unchallenged and unrebutted.
11. Further, perusal of the charge sheet shows that the offending vehicle was seized from the IO from the spot. Even otherwise, the petitioner was unknown to respondent no.1 prior to the accident and admittedly, there was no prior enmity with respondent no. 1 and hence, it is beyond comprehension as to why the petitioner will implicate respondent no.1 falsely, had he not been driving the offending vehicle. Further, it is settled law that the petitioner cannot be expected to prove the accident beyond reasonable doubts and the principle of res ipsa 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. No evidence was led by the respondents no. 1 & 2 to discharge this onus. Hence, an adverse inference is drawn against the respondents. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the cases of Teja Singh Vs Suman & Ors., MAC. APP. 1111/2018 & CM APPL. 52384/2018, 52386/2018, date of decision 06/12/2019; MAC. APP. 428/2018, titled as The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamla Devi & Ors, date of decision 08.11.2019 and MAC. APP. 690/2017 & CM APPL. 28108/2017, titled as Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mona & Ors., date of decision 15.10.2019, which had relied upon the judgment in the case of Cholamandalam Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamlesh 2009(3) AD Delhi 310.
12. Further, it is pertinent to mention here that in the Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.08.26 MACT No.104/2024 Manjur Alam Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Page 7 of 31 12:05:43 +0530 proceedings before the claims tribunal, the facts are to be established on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and not by the strict rules of evidence or the higher standard of beyond reasonable doubt as required in criminal cases. The burden of proof in the present cases is much lower than as placed in civil or criminal cases. In Bimla Devi & Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors (2009) 13 SC 530 , it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that negligence must be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view must be adopted in reaching a conclusion.
13. Further, it is also pertinent to note that the respondents no. 1 was chargesheeted by the IO under Section 279/338 IPC. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepak Goel & Ors, 2014 (2) TAC 846 (Del) decided by the Coordinate Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, it was 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."
12. Reliance is also being placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meera Devi, 2021 LawSuit (Del) wherein it was held that "......in view Digitally signed RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.08.26 12:05:53 +0530 MACT No.104/2024 Manjur Alam Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Page 8 of 31 of Delhi Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rules, 2008, contents of DAR has to be presumed to be correct and read in evidence without formal proof of the same unless proof to the contrary was produced."
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2018) 5 SCC 656 has laid down in paragraphs 27 & 28:
"27. ...This Court in a recent decision in Dulcina Fernandes, noted that the key of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle as set up by the claimants was required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Suffice it to observe that the exposition in the judgments already adverted to by us, filing of charge- sheet against Respondent 2 prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. Further, even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, this Court opined that the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal.
28. Reliance placed upon the decisions in Minu B. Mehta and Meena Variyal, by the respondents, in our opinion, is of no avail. The dictum in these cases is on the matter in issue in the case concerned. Similarly, even the dictum in Surender Kumar Arora will be of no avail. In the present case, considering the entirety of the pleadings, evidence and circumstances on record and in particular the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the factum of negligence of Respondent 2, the driver of the offending jeep, the High Court committed manifest error in taking a contrary view which, in our opinion, is Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.08.26 12:06:02 +0530 MACT No.104/2024 Manjur Alam Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Page 9 of 31 an error apparent on the face of record and manifestly wrong."
14. It has not been disputed that respondent No.1 has been charge-sheeted in the aforesaid FIR for offences punishable under Section 279/338 IPC for rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. In view of the same, considering the facts and circumstances, the unrebutted testimony of the petitioner and the documents filed thereto, the court is satisfied that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent no. 1. From the DAR, it also stands established that respondent no. 2, was the registered owner of the offending vehicle and that the offending vehicle was insured by the respondent no.3 vide policy no. 31130531220100000508 for the period 16.01.2023 till 15.01.2024.
The injury:
15. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that due to the accident he suffered injuries. In this regard he has relied upon his MLC bearing No. 2874/23 dt. 14.11.2023 which is part of the DAR which is Ex. PW-1/12 (colly). Perusal of the said MLC shows that on 14.11.2023, the injured was brought to the hospital with a history of accident. He had suffered multiple injuries. Further as per his clinical and X-ray report, the injured sustained by him were termed as grievous vide report dt. 13.12.2023. Further, the petitioner has relied upon his medical documents Ex. PW-1/7 as per which he took treatment. Perusal of the documents show that he remained in the hospital from 23.11.2023 till 12.12.2023. He also sustained fractures and was operated upon. Hence, Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.08.26 12:06:10 +0530 MACT No.104/2024 Manjur Alam Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Page 10 of 31 it is proved on record that due to the accident, the petitioner suffered grievous injury.
16. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is of the opinion that on the scales of preponderance of probabilities, the petitioner has proved that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle being driven by its driver/respondent no. 1 on the date and time of the accident and that due to the said accident, the petitioner had suffered grievous injury. Hence, this issue is decided in the favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2:
Whether the petitioner/injured is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
17. The onus to prove this issue was also upon the petitioner. In view of the observations as given above, the petitioner is entitled for compensation. In the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 34, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"General principles relating to compensation in injury cases
4. 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 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA 12:06:19 Date: 2025.08.26 +0530 MACT No.104/2024 Manjur Alam Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Page 11 of 31 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 - AIR 1970 SC 376, R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467).
5. 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).Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.08.26 12:06:27 +0530 MACT No.104/2024 Manjur Alam Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Page 12 of 31 In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv)."
18. In view of the above law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in injury cases, award needs to be passed only under heads of medical expenses, loss of earning during treatment period and damages for pain, suffering and trauma. This is a case where the petitioner has claimed that he suffered grievous injury due to the accident, hence, this Tribunal now proceeds further step by step to decide the compensation/award under different heads applicable to the present matter in light of above preposition.
Medical expenses:
19. The petitioner has not claimed any amount towards medical expenses. However, he has placed on record his medical bills Ex. PW1/8 which are to the tune of Rs. 2,934/-. Hence, in view of the same, the petitioner is held entitled to Rs. 2,934/- towards medical expenses.
Loss of income:
20. In this regard, it is submitted by the petitioner that at the time of the accident, he was running a grocery shop and also doing CCTV installation work from this shop. It is further stated that he was earning Rs. 50,000/- per month. In regard, the petitioner has relied upon his ITR for the assessment year 2018-19 which is Ex. PW-1/5. He has also relied upon the Udyog Registration Certificate of his shop which is Ex. PW-1/4. Perusal of his ITR Ex. PW-1/5 shows that he has filed his ITR for the assessment year 2018-19 mentioning a gross annual income Digitally signed RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.08.26 12:06:36 +0530 MACT No.104/2024 Manjur Alam Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Page 13 of 31 of Rs. 3,59,088/-.
21. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 held that for calculating compensation, the income of the victim less the income tax should be treated as the actual income. Further, in case titled as Universal Sompo General Insurance vs Sh. Dinesh Kumar Singh & Ors MAC.APP. 106/2025 decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 9 June, 2025, it has been observed that the Tribunal must deduct applicable income tax and other permissible statutory deductions from the gross income of the deceased while computing compensation payable to the petitioner. It was observed that:
"13. The learned Tribunal after a perusal of the salary slips and testimony of PW-2 who proved the said salary slips assessed the income of the deceased at ₹34,300/- per month. Thereby his gross annual income would be ₹4,11,600/-. The said income undoubtedly would be subject to tax as applicable at the relevant time. Thus, the learned Tribunal in the opinion of this Court ought to have considered the applicable tax and its deduction for the purpose of assessing the income of the deceased.
15. Even though the gross income of ₹4,11,600/- is subject to payment of tax under the relevant slab, however, the assessee is also entitled to benefit of standard deduction and other benefits as available to the tax payers."
22. As per the petitioner's ITR Ex.PW1/5, his deductions are shown to be Rs. 62,652/-. Hence, his annual net taxable income is Rs. 2,96,440/-. Accordingly, his monthly income would have been Rs.
Digitally signedRUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.08.26 12:06:44 +0530 MACT No.104/2024 Manjur Alam Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Page 14 of 31 24,703/-. The same is assessed to be his monthly income.
23. It is alleged by the petitioner that due to the injuries, he is unable to work as he is unable to stand. The same is opposed by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3. It is submitted that though the petitioner had suffered the grievous injuries, he has not suffered any disability. Further there is nothing on record to suggest that he is unable to conduct his usual lifestyle due to the said injuries. The court is inclined to accept the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3. The petitioner had moved the application for ascertaining his disability and a disability certificate 10.12.2024 was filed as per which he had suffered 5 % temporary disability. Meaning thereby that the disability can be improved with medical treatment.
24. However, it is a matter of record that the petitioner remained in the hospital for around 20 days from 23.11.2023 till 12.12.2023. This period and considering that he would have remained on rest after his surgery, it can be said that he was unable to work for four months. Hence, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to loss of income for four months i.e. Rs. 24,703/- X 4 = Rs. 98,812/-.
Special diet:
25. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per month towards special diet. Although, there is no bill to support his plea, but keeping in view the injuries sustained by the petitioner, a notional sum of Rs. 20,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under the head of special Digitally signed by RUCHIKA diet.
RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.08.26 12:06:52 +0530 MACT No.104/2024 Manjur Alam Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Page 15 of 31 Conveyance charges:
26. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards conveyance charges. Admittedly there is no document showing expense on conveyance, however, considering her injuries, this Tribunal is of the view that the petitioner must have spent money on conveyance thus, the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards conveyance charges.
Attendant charges:
27. The petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards attendant charges. Admittedly there is no document showing expense on attendant, however, considering his injuries, the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards attendant charges.
Pain & Suffering:
28. The petitioner/injured has claim Rs. 2,00,000/- under the head pain and suffering. As per medical documents, the petitioner has suffered grievous injuries and also sustained 5% temporary disability. It is not possible to quantify the compensation admissible to petitioner for the shock, pain and sufferings etc. which he actually suffered because of the above injuries, but as stated above, an effort has to be made to compensate him for the same in a just and reasonable manner. Hence, keeping in view the extent and nature of the injuries suffered by petitioner and duration of the treatment taken by him etc., an amount of Rs.50,000/- is being awarded to him towards pain and sufferings.Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.08.26 12:07:00 +0530 MACT No.104/2024 Manjur Alam Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Page 16 of 31 Mental and physical shock:
29. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs. 2,00,000/- for loss due to mental shock. Although, there is nothing on record to prove the same but keeping in view his injuries, it cannot be denied that he would definitely have suffered mental agony. Hence, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under head of "Loss due to Mental & Physical Shock".
Loss of amenities:
30. The petitioner/injured has claimed an amount of Rs.
5,00,000/- under this head. Although, there is nothing on record to prove the same, a lumpsum amount of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded to him under this head.
Disfiguration:
31. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs. 2,00,000/- under this head. Disfiguration generally implies spoiling or marring the appearance of something, especially a person's face or body. In the opinion of the court, the present case is not a case of disfiguration. Hence, no compensation is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
Loss of marriage prospects
32. The petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards marriage prospects. However, it is a matter of record that he is already married. In fact he has also placed on record the Aadhar Card of his wife namely Ms. Gajala Nargish. Hence, he is not entitled to any compensation under this head. RUCHIKA by Digitally signed RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.08.26 12:07:08 +0530 MACT No.104/2024 Manjur Alam Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Page 17 of 31 Loss of earning, inconvenience, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.:
33. The petitioner has claimed Rs. 10,00,000/- under this head.
There is nothing on record to prove the same. The petitioner is running his own shop. Hence, no compensation is awarded under this head.
Loss of future earnings due to disability:
34. As mentioned above, the petitioner has suffered 5% temporary disability. However, the same can be improved with medical treatment. Hence, he is not entitled to any compensation under this head.
Future medical expenses
35. As mentioned above, the petitioner has suffered 5% temporary disability. However, the same can be improved with medical treatment. No amount has been claimed by the petitioner under his head.
However, a lumpsum amount of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
36. Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the material on record, and the settled principles and guidelines governing the injury cases like the present one, the compensation is being derived in the present case as under:-
NAME OF HEAD AMOUNT (in Rupees) Expenditure on Treatment Rs. 2,934/- Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.08.26 12:07:17 +0530 MACT No.104/2024 Manjur Alam Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Page 18 of 31 Monthly income of injured Rs. 24,703/- Loss of income x 4 months Rs. 98,812/- Add future prospects Nil Loss of future income (income X % Nil Earning Capacity X Multiplier)
Any other loss/expenditure (future Rs. 50,000/- medical expenses) Expense on special diet Rs. 20,000/-
Conveyance charges Rs. 30,000/- Attendant charges Rs. 30,000/-
Mental & Physical Shock & Pain & Rs. 50,000/- + Rs.50,000/- = Suffering Rs. 1,00,000/-
Loss of amenities Rs.50,000/- Disfiguration Nil Loss of marriage prospects Nil Loss of earning, inconvenience, Nil
hardship, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc. Total Rs. 3,81,746/-
37. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @ Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld awarding of 9% interest per annum. Therefore, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 12.02.2024 till realization.
Digitally signed byRUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.08.26 12:07:25 +0530 MACT No.104/2024 Manjur Alam Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Page 19 of 31 DISBURSEMENT
38. The Financial Statement of petitioner/injured was recorded by this Court/Tribunal. As per the said statement, the monthly expenses of his family are approximately Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 35,000/- per month.
39. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide orders dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 under the title Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors. has given the following directions:
"(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name to be added in the saving account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimants i.e. saving bank accounts of the claimants shall be an individual saving bank account and not a joint account.
(ii) Original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited by the ECS in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without the permission of the court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimants. However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount.
The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of claimants so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of claimants from any other branch of the bank.
Digitally signed by RUCHIKARUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.08.26 12:07:34 +0530 MACT No.104/2024 Manjur Alam Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Page 20 of 31
(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."
40. However, in a recent judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India titled as Parminder Singh vs Honey Goyal on 18 March, 2025 in S.L.P. (C) No. 4484 OF 2020 has held 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 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.08.26 12:07:43 +0530 MACT No.104/2024 Manjur Alam Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Page 21 of 31 claim petition they should update the same before the Tribunal. This should be ensured before passing of the final award. It may be ensured that the bank account should be in the name of the claimant(s) and if minor, through guardian(s) and in no case it should be a joint account with any person, who is not a family member. The transfer of the amount in the bank account, particulars of which have been furnished by the claimant(s), as mentioned in the award, shall be treated as satisfaction of the award. Intimation of compliance should be furnished to the Tribunal."
41. 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 High Court shall be complied with.
42. After considering the financial statement of the petitioner, it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs.4,34,618 (Rupees Four Lakhs Thirty Four Thousand Six Hundred Eighteen only), Rs.1,34,618 (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Four Thousand Six Hundred Eighteen only only) be released to the petitioner/claimant immediately in his savings bank account maintained at UCO Bank, District Court Complex Karkardooma, Delhi bearing no. 20780110221426 IFSC no. UCBA0002078, CIF no. R08333236.
43. The balance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) shall be put in 10 monthly fixed deposits in his name in his bank Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.08.26 12:07:51 +0530 MACT No.104/2024 Manjur Alam Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Page 22 of 31 account of equal amount of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 10 months respectively, with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in his saving account maintained in a nationalized bank situated near the place of his residence.
44. In compliance of the directions given by Hon'ble High Court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 08.01.2021, Summary of the Award in the prescribed Format-XVI is as under:
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
Date of Accident: 14.11.2023
Name of the injured: Manjur Alam
Age of the Injured: Presently 33 years
Occupation of the Injured: Running Grocery Shop with CCTV
Services .
Income of the Injured: Rs. 24,703/- per month
Nature of Injury: Grievous
Medical Treatment taken: Lok Nayak Hospital, Delhi.
Period of Hospitalization: 23.11.2023 till 12.12.2023
Whether any permanent: No.
disability?
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
Sr. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.08.26
12:07:59 +0530
MACT No.104/2024 Manjur Alam Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Page 23 of 31
No.
1. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on Treatment Rs. 2,934/-
(ii) Expenditure on Special Diet Rs. 20,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on Rs. 30,000/-
Nursing/Attendant charges
(iv) Expenditure on Conveyance Rs. 30,000/-
(v) Monthly income of injured Rs. 24,703/-
(vi) Loss of income x 4 months Rs. 98,812/-
(vii) Add future prospects Nil
viii) Any other loss which may Rs. 50,000/-
require any special treatment or
aid to the injured for the rest of
his life
2. Non Pecuniary Loss
(i) Compensation for mental and
physical shock Rs. 50,000/- + Rs.50,000/- =
(ii) Pain and Sufferings Rs. 1,00,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.50,000/-
(iv)
Disfiguration Nil
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Nil
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, Nil
hardships, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and unhappiness in
future life etc.
3. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.08.26 12:08:11 +0530 MACT No.104/2024 Manjur Alam Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Page 24 of 31
(i) Percentage of disability assessed 5 % temporary disability and nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of Nil.
expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning Nil capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (income Nil x % earning capacity x Multiplier)
4. Total Rs. 3,81,746/-
1(ii+iii+iv+vi)+2(i+ii+vi)
Interest awarded 9%
6. Earlier award amount (which has
already been received by the
petitioner in terms of previous -
award passed by Ld.
Predecessor) to be deducted
from present award amount .
7. Interest amount upto the date of Rs. 52,872/-
award w.e.f. 12.02.2024 till
realization
8. Total amount including Interest Rs.4,34,618/-
9. Award amount released As mentioned in para nos. 42 & 43
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.26
12:08:20 +0530
MACT No.104/2024 Manjur Alam Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Page 25 of 31
10. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.3,00,000/-
11. Mode of disbursement of the As mentioned in para nos. 42 & 43
award amount of the claimant(s)
12. Next date for compliance of the 26.09.2025
award
LIABILITY:
45. It has been established that the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1 and that respondent no.2 is the owner of the same. Further, the vehicle was insured with the respondent no.3. Hence, the respondent no. 3 shall be liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner. The issue is accordingly decided in the favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
RELIEF:
46. The respondent no. 3 is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,81,746/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Eighty One Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Six only) along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 12.02.2024 till realization with the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal within 30 days under intimation to the claimant, failing which the said respondent shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days. Reliance placed on case titled as Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @ Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
47. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurance company for compliance within the time granted Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.08.26 12:08:28 +0530 MACT No.104/2024 Manjur Alam Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Page 26 of 31 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. The said respondent is further directed to give intimation of deposit of the compensation amount to the claimant and shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days of the deposit with a copy to the Claimant and his counsel.
Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of cost.
Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate 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)].
Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on 26.09.2025 in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the time granted.
Further, Civil 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).
Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
Digitally signed byRUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.08.26 12:08:37 +0530 MACT No.104/2024 Manjur Alam Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Page 27 of 31 File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court today on this 26th August, 2025 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.08.26 12:08:50 +0530 (RUCHIKA SINGLA) PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
MACT No.104/2024 Manjur Alam Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Page 28 of 31THE PARTICULARS AS PER FORM-XVII, CENTRAL MOTOR VEHICLES (FIFTH AMENDMENT) RULES, 2022 (PL. SEE RULE 150A) ARE AS UNDER:-
1 Date of Accident 14.11.2023 2 Date of filing of Form-I -
First Accident Report 18.11.2023
(FAR)
3 Date of delivery of Form-II
12.02.2024
to the victim(s)
4 Date of receipt of Form-III
04.01.2024
from the Driver
5 Date of receipt of Form-IV
from the Owner 04.01.2024
6 Date of filing of Form-V-
Particulars of the insurance 04.01.2024
of the vehicle
7 Date of receipt of Form-
12.02.2024
VIA from the Victim(s)
8 Date of filing of Form-VII -
12.02.2024
Detail Accident Report
(DAR)
9 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the
part of the Investigating No.
Officer? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the
Designated Officer by the N.A.
Insurance Company
11 Whether the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company admitted his Yes.
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.26
12:09:03 +0530
MACT No.104/2024 Manjur Alam Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Page 29 of 31
report within 30 days of the
DAR?
12 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the No.
part of the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company? If so, whether
any action/direction
warranted?
13 Date of response of the NA
claimant(s) to the offer of
the Insurance Company.
14 Date of award 26.08.2025
15 Whether the claimant(s)
were directed to open Yes
savings bank account(s)
near their place of
residence?
16 Date of order by which
claimant(s) were directed to
open Savings Bank
Account(s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN
card and Aadhar Card and 12.02.2024
the direction to the bank not
to issue any cheque
book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an
endorsement to this effect
on the passbook(s).
17 Date on which the
claimant(s) produced the
passbook of their savings
bank account(s) near the 11.08.2025
place of their residence
alongwith the endorsement,
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.26
12:09:11 +0530
MACT No.104/2024 Manjur Alam Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Page 30 of 31
PAN card and Aadhar Card?
18 Permanent residential
address of the claimant(s). As per Award.
19 Whether the claimant(s)
savings bank account(s) is
No.
near their place of
residence?
20 Whether the Claimant(s)
were examined at the time
Yes. The Financial Statement of the claimant of passing of the Award to was recorded 11.08.2025.
ascertain his/their financial condition?
Digitally signed byRUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.08.26 12:09:19 +0530 (RUCHIKA SINGLA) PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
26.08.2025 MACT No.104/2024 Manjur Alam Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Page 31 of 31