Delhi District Court
Ramesh Kumar (I) (Fir 416/2022/Civil ... vs Atul Kumar (Kotak Mahindra) on 30 May, 2025
DLCT010087312023
Presented on : 04-07-2023
Registered on : 04-07-2023
Decided on : 30-05-2025
Duration : 01 Year 10 Months
IN THE TRIBUNAL OF PRESIDING OFFICER-MACT-02,
CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED OVER BY DR. PANKAJ SHARMA
IN THE MATTER OF LEAD CASE/ MACT No. 573/23 ( For
Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by
the injured Nakul):
NAKUL
S/o Sh. Mukesh Kumar
R/o H.No. 385/A/3-A,
Gali No. 15, East Azad Nagar,
Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051. .......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. ATUL
S/o Sh. Mukesh Kumar
R/o H.No. T-4, Rajpur Road,
Tis Hazari Metro, Delhi. (Driver).
2. KRISHAN GUPTA
S/o Sh. Moti Lal Gupta
R/o H.No. C-70A, 1st Floor, New Ashok Nagar,
East, Delhi. (Owner).
3. KOTAK MAHINDERA GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD. (Insurer)
(Through Ld. Counsel Sh. M. Awasthi) ......Respondents
MACT No. 573/23 Nakul Vs Atul & Ors. Page No. 1/45
MACT No. 575/23 Ramesh Kumar Vs Atul & Ors. PANKAJ by Digitally signed PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.30 12:57:25 +0530 AND DLCT010087322023 Presented on : 04-07-2023 Registered on : 04-07-2023 Decided on : 30-05-2025 Duration : 01 Year 10 Months IN THE MATTER OF CASE / MACT No. 575/23 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by the injured Ramesh Kumar):
RAMESH KUMAR D/o Sh. Mohan Singh R/o H. No. 3/6, Canal Colony, Under Hill Road, Civil Lines, Delhi. .......Petitioner VERSUS
1. ATUL S/o Sh. Mukesh Kumar R/o H.No. T-4, Rajpur Road, Tis Hazari Metro, Delhi. (Driver).
2. KRISHAN GUPTA S/o Sh. Moti Lal Gupta R/o H.No. C-70A, 1st Floor, New Ashok Nagar, East, Delhi. (Owner).
3. KOTAK MAHINDERA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. (Insurer) (Through Ld. Counsel Sh. M. Awasthi) ......Respondents.MACT No. 573/23 Nakul Vs Atul & Ors. Page No. 2/45
MACT No. 575/23 Ramesh Kumar Vs Atul & Ors. Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.05.30 12:57:33 +0530 The particulars as per Form-XVII, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A) are as under:-
1. Date of the accident 16/10/22
2. Date of filing of Form-I - First Accident Report N.A. (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 Accident N.A. 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 Accident 04/07/23 Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on N.A. the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer N.A. by the Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance N.A. Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on N.A. 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 offer N.A. of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the award 30/05/25
15. Whether the petitioner (s) was/were directed to Yes open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?MACT No. 573/23 Nakul Vs Atul & Ors. Page No. 3/45
MACT No. 575/23 Ramesh Kumar Vs Atul & Ors. Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.05.30 12:57:45 +0530
16. Date of order by which claimant(s) was/were 04/07/23 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 N.A. 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 IN MACT No. Claimant(s). 573/23 H.No. 385/A/3-A, Gali No. 15, East Azad Nagar, Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051 AND IN MACT No. 575/23 H. No. 3/6, Canal Colony,Under Hill Road, Civil Lines, Delhi.
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) N.A. is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) was/were examined at N.A. the time of passing of the award to ascertain MACT No. 573/23 Nakul Vs Atul & Ors. Page No. 4/45 MACT No. 575/23 Ramesh Kumar Vs Atul & Ors. Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2025.05.30 12:57:51 +0530 his/their financial condition?
COMMON AWARD/JUDGMENT FACTUAL POSITION & PLAINT/ PETITION
1. These two separate DARs were filed on 04/07/2023.
Both these DARs are arising out of a road traffic accident which took place on 16/10/2022 at about 4.30 P.M. at a spot on footpath Rakmani Devi, Jaipuria School Rajpur Road, Delhi falling within the jurisdiction of PS Civil Lines, Delhi. As per DAR, at the relevant date, time and place, the petitioner in the lead case bearing MACT No. 573/23 Sh. Nakul S/o Sh. Mukesh Kumar (hereinafter referred to as "injured ") alongwith his friend namely Sh. Ramesh Kumar S/o Sh. Mohan Singh (hereinafter referred to as "injured") who is petitioner in the connected case bearing MACT No. 575/23 was accompany with his friend namely in his motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-13S-7288 as a pillion rider and at about 04.30 when he reached at Rukmani Devi Jaipuria School, Atul took the way over foothpath and on the said footpath one person was going as a pedestrian in the meantime the Motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-13S-7288 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle") driven on footpath which coming in a very rash, negligent and carelessness manner and the said offending motorcycle brutally hit against the person and resulting which R-1 loose his control over the said motorcycle. The petitioners alongwith said Atul fell down on the road and sustained multiple grievous injuries. An FIR No. 416/22 PS MACT No. 573/23 Nakul Vs Atul & Ors. Page No. 5/45 MACT No. 575/23 Ramesh Kumar Vs Atul & Ors. PANKAJ by Digitally signed PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.30 12:57:57 +0530 Civil Lines, Delhi was registered U/s 279/338 IPC by the police wherein it is stated that the accident took place on account of rashness and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. R-1 is the driver of the offending vehicle. R-2 is the owner of the offending vehicle. The DAR was treated as 'claim petition'. R-3 / Insurance Company was directed to file a legal offer/reasoned decision in response to the said DAR. R-1 & R-2 were also directed to file their Written Statements.
1.1 As per injured Nakul he sustained grievous injuries i.e. fracture right leg ligament ACL ligament and injuries all over body. He further claims that someone brought him to Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi and in Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi he was medically examined and treated by the doctor and the doctors of the said hospital prepared a MLC No. 2435/2022. Injured Nakul further claims that he has incurred an expenses to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- towards medical treatment, Rs. 40,000/- on conveyance, Rs. 40,000/- on special diet and Rs. 30,000/- towards attendant. He further claims that his health has deteriorated due to the injuries sustained in the accident, leading to financial losses. He further claims that at the relevant time he was 23 years old and was working in Pant Hospital, Delhi and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. He seeks compensation to for the injuries sustained by him in the accident.
MACT No. 573/23 Nakul Vs Atul & Ors. Page No. 6/45MACT No. 575/23 Ramesh Kumar Vs Atul & Ors. PANKAJ by Digitally signed PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.30 12:58:03 +0530 1.2 As per injured Ramesh Kumar he sustained multiple grievous injuries i.e. fracture on both wrist and leg thigh. He further claims that someone brought him to Sushruta Trauma Centre, Delhi and in Sushruta Trauma Centre, Delhi he was medically examined and treated by the doctor and the doctors of the said hospital prepared a MLC No. 2436/2022. Injured Ramesh Kumar further claims that he has incurred an expenses to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards medical treatment, Rs. 50,000/- on conveyance, Rs. 50,000/- on special diet and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards future treatment. He further claims that his health has deteriorated due to the injuries sustained in the accident, leading to financial losses. He further claims that at the relevant time he was 56 years old and was Clerk in Irrigation and Water Resource Department and was earning Rs.52,474/- per month. He seeks compensation to for the injuries sustained by him in the accident.
WRITTEN STATEMENT IN CASE/ MACT No. 573/23 ( For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by the injured Nakul):
2. No written statement was filed by R-1 & R-2 and accordingly right of R-1 & R-2 to file written statement was closed vide order dated 06/11/2023 passed by this Tribunal.
3. R-3/Insurance Company filed a reply wherein it seeks to avoid liability on the ground that the offending vehicle driven by its driver did not have a valid and effective driving license and MACT No. 573/23 Nakul Vs Atul & Ors. Page No. 7/45 MACT No. 575/23 Ramesh Kumar Vs Atul & Ors. PANKAJ by Digitally signed PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.30 12:58:08 +0530 he was under the influence of alcohol also at the relevant time. However, it is admitted that at the relevant time the offending vehicle was covered by an insurance policy issued by itself.
WRITTEN STATEMENT IN CASE/ MACT No. 575/23 ( For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by the injured Ramesh Kumar):
4. No written statement was filed by R-1 & R-2 and accordingly right of R-1 & R-2 to file written statement was closed vide order dated 06/11/2023 passed by this Tribunal.
5. R-3/Insurance Company filed a reply wherein it seeks to avoid liability on the ground that the offending vehicle driven by its driver did not have a valid and effective driving license and he was under the influence of alcohol also at the relevant time. However, it is admitted that at the relevant time the offending vehicle was covered by an insurance policy issued by itself.
ISSUES IN CASE/ MACT No. 573/23 ( For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by the injured Nakul):
6. Vide order dated 06/11/2023 the following issues were framed by this Tribunal :-
1. Whether the petitioner Nakul suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 16.10.2022 at about 04.30 P.M. involving vehicle bearing registration MACT No. 573/23 Nakul Vs Atul & Ors. Page No. 8/45 MACT No. 575/23 Ramesh Kumar Vs Atul & Ors. PANKAJ by Digitally signed PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.30 12:58:20 +0530 DL-13S-7288 driven by Respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently, owned by the Respondent No.2 and insured with the respondent no.3?OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
ISSUES IN CASE/ MACT No. 575/23 ( For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by the injured Ramesh Kumar):
7. Vide order dated 06/11/2023 the following issues were framed by this Tribunal :-
1. Whether the petitioner Ramesh Kumar suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 16.10.2022 at about 04.30 P.M. involving vehicle bearing registration DL-13S-7288 driven by Respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently, owned by the Respondent No.2 and insured with the respondent no.3?OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.MACT No. 573/23 Nakul Vs Atul & Ors. Page No. 9/45
MACT No. 575/23 Ramesh Kumar Vs Atul & Ors. Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.05.30 12:58:25 +0530 EVIDENCE IN CASE/ MACT No. 573/23 ( For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by the injured Nakul):
8. The petitioner Nakul examined himself as PW-1 in support of his claim. The petitioner filed affidavit Ex. PW1/A wherein he described the occurrence of incident in line with the facts mentioned in Para 1 of this award. He deposed that he sustained grievous injuries at the relevant time. He further deposed that at the relevant time, he was 23 years old and was working at Pant Hospital and was earning Rs.20,000/- and due to injuries he has not been able to do his work till date due to the said accident and he has sustained permanent locomotor disability to the extent of 15% with respect to his right lower limb. he has incurred an expenses to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- towards medical treatment, Rs. 40,000/- on conveyance, Rs. 40,000/- on special diet and Rs. 30,000/- towards attendant. Petitioner has relied upon the following documents viz:-
"Ex. PW1/1 is copy of Marksheet of 12th Class of PW-1;
Ex. PW1/2 is DAR;
Ex.PW1/3 (OSR) is copy of Aadhar Card of PW-1.'' 8.1 He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R-3/ Insurance Company. In his cross-examination, he deposed that immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Lok Nayak Hospital. He denied the suggestion that he was never admitted in any hospital. He further denied the suggestion that the accident MACT No. 573/23 Nakul Vs Atul & Ors. Page No. 10/45 MACT No. 575/23 Ramesh Kumar Vs Atul & Ors. PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.30 12:58:31 +0530 had been taken place due to negligence of Atul who had driven the motorcycle on which he was travelling as pillion rider. He further denied the suggestiont hat he has not suffered any permanent disability.
8.2 PE was then closed.
8.3 RE was lead by R-3/ Insurance Company in the connected case bearing MACT No. 575/23 and same is read in the present case also.
EVIDENCE IN CASE/ MACT No. 575/23 ( For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by the injured Ramesh Kumar):
9. The petitioner Ramesh Kumar examined himself as PW-1 in support of his claim. The petitioner filed affidavit Ex. PW1/A wherein he described the occurrence of incident in line with the facts mentioned in Para 1 of this award. He deposed that he sustained grievous injuries at therelevant time. He further deposed thahe has incurred an expenses to the tune of Rs1,00,000/- towards medical treatment, Rs. 50,000/- on conveyance,R 50,000/- on special diet and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards future treatment. He further claims that his health has deteriorated due to the injuries sustained in the accident, leading to financial losses. He further claims that at the relevant time he was 56 years old and was Clerk in Irrigation and Water Resource Department and was earning MACT No. 573/23 Nakul Vs Atul & Ors. Page No. 11/45 MACT No. 575/23 Ramesh Kumar Vs Atul & Ors. PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.30 12:58:36 +0530 Rs.52,474/- per month. Petitioner has relied upon the following documents viz:-
"Ex. PW-1/1 is discharge summary of PW-1; Ex.PW-1/2 (Colly) is treatment papers; Ex. PW-1/3 (Colly) is DAR;
Ex.PW-1/4 (Colly) is educational certificate of PW-1;
Ex.PW-1/5 is copy of Aadhar Card of PW-1; Ex.PW-1/6 is salary slip of PW-1''.
9.1 He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R-3/ Insurance Company. In his cross-examination, he deposed that at the time of accident he was on the footpath and the offending vehicle climbed over the footpath and hit him. He denied the suggestion that he has not incurred the amount spent by him as stated in the Para No. 3 of his affidavit.
9.2 Petitioner further examined one Dr. Sanjay Yadav, Ortho Specialist, Aruna Asaf Ali Government Hospital, Delh as PW-2. He proved the disability certificate and assessment sheet. He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R-3/ Insurance Company. In his cross-examination, he deposed that the petitioner was never remained under his treatment.
9.3 PE was then closed.
9.4 R-3 examined its official Ms. Deependra Singh, MACT No. 573/23 Nakul Vs Atul & Ors. Page No. 12/45 MACT No. 575/23 Ramesh Kumar Vs Atul & Ors. PANKAJ by Digitally signed PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.30 12:58:41 +0530 Senior Manager, Legal, Zurich Kotak General Insurance Company Ltd as R3W1 in his defence. He deposed vide his affidavit Ex. R3W1/A. He relied upon the attested copy of insurance policy vide Ex.R3W1/1 (Colly). He was cross- examined by Ld. Counsel for petitioner. In his cross- examination he admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with the insurance company on the date of accident.
10. Both the above matters were consolidated at the stage of recording of respondent's evidence vide order dated 27/05/2025 and the matter for Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Nakul i.e. MACT No. 573/23 was treated as a lead case.
FINDINGS
11. Oral submissions were advanced by Ld. Counsel for parties in both the cases.
12. I have perused the record and my issue wise findings are as under:-
ISSUE NO. 1 IN CASE/ MACT No. 573/23 ( For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by the injured Nakul):
'Whether the petitioner Nakul suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 16.10.2022 at about 04.30 P.M. involving MACT No. 573/23 Nakul Vs Atul & Ors. Page No. 13/45 MACT No. 575/23 Ramesh Kumar Vs Atul & Ors. Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.05.30 12:58:47 +0530 vehicle bearing registration DL-13S-7288 driven by Respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently, owned by the Respondent No.2 and insured with the respondent no.3?OPP ISSUES IN CASE/ MACT No. 575/23 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by the injured Ramesh Kumar):
'Whether the petitioner Ramesh Kumar suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 16.10.2022 at about 04.30 P.M. involving vehicle bearing registration DL-13S-7288 driven by Respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently, owned by the Respondent No.2 and insured with the respondent no.3?OPP.'
13. At the very outset, it may be noted that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court and in civil matters the facts are required to be established by preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable doubts, as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is never as heavy as in a criminal case, but in a claim petition under the M.V. Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the prepositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in MACT No. 573/23 Nakul Vs Atul & Ors. Page No. 14/45 MACT No. 575/23 Ramesh Kumar Vs Atul & Ors. Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.05.30 12:58:53 +0530 (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR 1096(Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and also recently in another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 etc.
14. In order to prove the present issue, the petitioners in both the petitions have examined themselves as PWs-1. Both the injured persons have clearly and categorically deposed that at the relevant date, time and place, they sustained grievous injuries by a Motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-13S-7288 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle") driven on footpath which coming in a very rash, negligent and carelessness manner and the said offending motorcycle brutally hit against the person and resulting which R-1 loose his control over the said motorcycle. The petitioners alongwith said Atul fell down on the road and sustained multiple grievous injuries. The oral testimonies of PWs-1 have gone unrebutted qua R-1 and R-2. Both PWs-1 seem to have withstood the test of cross examination. There is no material on record, which suggests any falsity or untruth in the oral testimonies of PWs-1 as to the facts and circumstances surrounding the occurrence of the accident. Both PWs-1 withstood the test of cross examination and did not betray any signs of falsity or untruth. They declined the suggestions imputing the occurrence of accident to their own negligence.
MACT No. 573/23 Nakul Vs Atul & Ors. Page No. 15/45MACT No. 575/23 Ramesh Kumar Vs Atul & Ors. PANKAJ Digitally by PANKAJ SHARMA signed SHARMA Date: 2025.05.30 12:58:58 +0530
15. The very fact that R-1 has already been charge- sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279/338 IPC & 5/180, 185 MV Act in the above criminal case/FIR in itself is a strong circumstance to support the above oral testimony of injured persons on these issues. The copies of FIR, Chargesheet, MLC, Mechanical Inspection Report and Site Plan also corroborate the oral testimonies of both the injured persons.
16. Besides the above, R-1 himself was the best witness who could have stepped into the witness box to challenge the deposition being made by injured persons regarding the above accident and its manner etc., but he has not done so. Therefore, an adverse inference on this aspect is also required to be drawn against the respondents in view of the law laid down in case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.
17. In view of the above, it could be safely assumed that the R-1 was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
18. Having ruled so, this Tribunal now proceeds to assess the wrongful act, neglect or default of R-1, if any, in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. Admittedly, MACT No. 573/23 Nakul Vs Atul & Ors. Page No. 16/45 MACT No. 575/23 Ramesh Kumar Vs Atul & Ors. PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.30 12:59:03 +0530 R-1 has not explained the circumstances under which his vehicle (i.e. the offending vehicle) hit the injured persons at the relevant time. In the absence of any averment or evidence regarding any mechanical defect in the offending vehicle or any material depicting any negligent/sudden act or omission on the part of the petitioner, the only inference possible in the given facts and circumstances is that of neglect and default on the part of R-1 in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is constrained to hold R-1 guilty of gross negligence and default in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time.
19. In view of the medical records placed on the judicial files by the respective petitioners, no dispute is left regarding the nature of injuries sustained by the injured persons in the above accident.
20. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal holds that the injured persons suffered grievous injuries on account of neglect and default of R-1 while driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. Both these issues are thus decided against the respondents and in favour of the petitioners in both the cases.
ISSUE NO. 2 (IN BOTH THE CASES)
21. As this Tribunal has already held that R1 was MACT No. 573/23 Nakul Vs Atul & Ors. Page No. 17/45 MACT No. 575/23 Ramesh Kumar Vs Atul & Ors. Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.05.30 12:59:13 +0530 responsible for the grievous injuries sustained by the injured persons, therefore, the petitioners in both the cases are entitled to be compensated justly. Computation of the compensation shall be decided separately for all the sets of petitioners in the following paragraphs :-
COMPENSATION IN CASE/ MACT No. 573/23 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Nakul ):
22. In terms of provisions contained in Section 168 of the MV Act the compensation which is to be awarded by this tribunal is required to be 'just'. In the injury cases a claimant is entitled to two different kinds of compensations i.e. pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary damages. The pecuniary damages or special damages are those damages which are awarded and designed to make good the losses which are capable of being calculated in terms of money and the object of awarding these damages is to indemnify the claimant for the expenses which he had already incurred or is likely to incur in respect of the injuries suffered by him in the accident. The non-pecuniary or general damages are those damages which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. The pecuniary or special damages generally include the expenses incurred by the claimant towards his treatment, special diet, conveyance, cost of nursing/ attendant, loss of income/earning capacity etc. and the non- pecuniary damages generally include the compensation for the mental or physical shock, pain and sufferings, loss of amenities MACT No. 573/23 Nakul Vs Atul & Ors. Page No. 18/45 MACT No. 575/23 Ramesh Kumar Vs Atul & Ors. PANKAJ by Digitally signed PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.30 12:59:19 +0530 of life, marriage prospects and disfiguration etc. The above categories falling under both the heads of compensation are not exhaustive in nature but only illustrative. It is also necessary to state here that no amount of money or compensation can put the injured/claimant exactly in the same position or place where he was before the accident and an effort is to be made only to reasonably compensate him or to put him almost in the same place or position where he could have been if the alleged accident had not taken place and this compensation is to be assessed in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The object of compensating him is also not to reward him or to make him rich in an unjust manner. It is also well settled that the 'just' compensation to be awarded to the claimant has to be calculated objectively and it may involve some guess work in calculating the different amounts which the claimant may be entitled under the different heads of compensation. Reference in this regard can be made on some of important judgments on the subject like the judgment in the case of R.D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1995 SC 755, Arvind Kumar Mishra Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited, (2010) 10 SCC 254 and Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343.
23. In light of the above legal propositions, the amount of compensation which can be considered to be 'just' in the opinion of this tribunal shall be as under:-
MACT No. 573/23 Nakul Vs Atul & Ors. Page No. 19/45MACT No. 575/23 Ramesh Kumar Vs Atul & Ors. PANKAJ by Digitally signed PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.30 12:59:24 +0530
(i) Medical or Treatment Expenses
24. No bill regarding treatment has been filed by injured. It is common knowledge that generally people during the treatment do not maintain the bills etc as they are not aware of this benevolent legislation having provisions for compensation. Keeping in view the overall circumstances, I hereby grant a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses.
(ii) Pain and Suffering
25. As per medical documents, the petitioner has suffered grievous injuries and also sustained 15% permanent physical impairment in relation to his right lower limb. As per disability certificate no. 2111 dated 27/02/2025 issued by Aruna Asaf Ali Govt hospital Delhi, petitioner is a case of 'Injury Rt Knee' and was found to have sustained 15% permanent physical impairment in relation to Right Lower Limb which is non progressive and not likely to improve in future. The aforementioned certificate was issued in terms of the directions of this Tribunal vide order dated 29/11/2024. Accordingly, the aforementioned disability certificate could be read in evidence in terms of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Union of India in Writ Petition (s) (Civil ) No (s). 534/2020 date of order 16/11/2021. 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 MACT No. 573/23 Nakul Vs Atul & Ors. Page No. 20/45 MACT No. 575/23 Ramesh Kumar Vs Atul & Ors. PANKAJ by Digitally signed PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.30 12:59:29 +0530 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 during the said period of his treatment and immobility. Thus, he is awarded a total amount of Rs. 50,000/- under this head.
(iii) Loss of actual earnings
26. In his affidavit Ex. PW1/A, the petitioner claims that he used to work at electric shop and was earning Rs.18,000/- per month from that vocation. The discharge summaries placed on record by petitioner reflect that the petitioner sustained a grievous injuries which resulted into 15% permanent physical impairment with respect to his Right Lower Limb which is non progressive and not likely to improve in future. The above documents are sufficient to uphold the claim of the petitioner to the effect that he was unable to resume his work since the date of accident. In view of the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner, it could be safely assumed that the petitioner has become unfit for work for rest of his life after the accident and he could not have worked for about 06 months due to the injuries. As per relevant notification, the minimum wages admissible to a Matriculate Person as on 16/10/2022 in Delhi the earnings was Rs.20,357/-. As such, the petitioner is held entitled to a sum of Rs.1,22,142/- (Rs.20,357/- X 6). The said MACT No. 573/23 Nakul Vs Atul & Ors. Page No. 21/45 MACT No. 575/23 Ramesh Kumar Vs Atul & Ors. Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.05.30 12:59:36 +0530 sum is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
(iv) Loss of future earnings due to disability
27. Petitioner claimed in his affidavit Ex. PW1/A that he has become permanently disabled after the accident and could not perform his work by resuming his duties. As per disability certificate the petitioner has suffered 15% permanent physical impairment with respect to right lower limb which is non progressive and not likely to improve in future. As per evidence, the petitioner was working in Pant Hospital and was getting salary of Rs.20,000/- per month. Due to the permanent impairment on his right lower limb his functional capacity would decrease to a greater extent. The petitioner is a young boy and permanent disability in the right lower limb would effect overall upon his work profile as well as future prospects. In the facts and circumstances, the functional disability of the petitioner is considered as 15%. This Tribunal has already assumed the monthly income of petitioner to be Rs.20,357/- at the relevant time. As far as the age of petitioner at the time of accident is concerned, we may look into the photocopies of petitioner's Aadhar Card which is Ex.PW-1/4, as per the said document, the date of birth of petitioner is 11/04/1998. Going by the same, the age of petitioner as on the date of accident i.e. 16/10/2022 was around 23 years. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.,(2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been upheld by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme MACT No. 573/23 Nakul Vs Atul & Ors. Page No. 22/45 MACT No. 575/23 Ramesh Kumar Vs Atul & Ors. PANKAJ by Digitally signed PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.30 12:59:42 +0530 Court in a recent judgment dated 31.10.2017 given in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, the multiplier of '18' is held applicable for calculating the loss of future earnings of petitioner arising out of his above disability.Thus, the loss of future earnings of petitioner due to his above injury and permanent locomotor disability comes to Rs.9,23,394/- (rounded off) (Rs.20,357/- X 140/100 X 15/100 X 12 X 18) and the same is awarded to him as compensation under this head.
(v) Conveyance, Attendant Charges and Special Diet
28. In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the extent of permanent physical disability and the extended period of medical treatment, the petitioner is granted a sum of Rs. 35,000/- each under these heads.
(vi) Loss of amenities of life and disfigurement
29. In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the extent of permanent physical disability and the extended period of medical treatment, the petitioner is granted a sum of Rs. 35,000/- each under these heads.
MACT No. 573/23 Nakul Vs Atul & Ors. Page No. 23/45MACT No. 575/23 Ramesh Kumar Vs Atul & Ors.
Digitally signedPANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.30 12:59:48 +0530 COMPENSATION IN CASE/ MACT No. 575/23 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Ramesh Kumar):
(i) Medical or Treatment Expenses
30. Petitioner claimed he was doing a government job at the time of accident and in his cross-examination he deposed that he got treated free from the Trauma Centre being a government hospital and such nothing is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
(ii) Pain and Suffering
31. As per medical documents, the petitioner has suffered grievous injuries and also sustained 19% permanent physical impairment with respect to his left lower limb which is non progressive and not likely to improve in future. As per disability certificate no. 1958 dated 12/04/2024 issued by Aruna Asaf Ali Govt hospital Delhi, petitioner is a case of # FUC of I/C # Femur (Lt) and was found to have sustained 19% permanent physical impairment in relation to left lower limb which ins non progressive and not likely to improve in future. The aforementioned certificate was issued in terms of the directions of this Tribunal vide order dated 29/11/2024. Accordingly, the aforementioned disability certificate could be read in evidence in terms of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of MACT No. 573/23 Nakul Vs Atul & Ors. Page No. 24/45 MACT No. 575/23 Ramesh Kumar Vs Atul & Ors. PANKAJ Digitally by PANKAJ signed SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.30 12:59:54 +0530 India in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Union of India in Writ Petition (s) (Civil ) No (s). 534/2020 date of order 16/11/2021. 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 during the said period of his treatment and immobility. Thus, he is awarded a total amount of Rs. 50,000/- under this head.
(iii) Loss of actual earnings
32. In his affidavit Ex. PW-1/A, the petitioner claims that he is working as Clerk in Irrigation and Water Resource Department and was earning Rs.52,474/- per month. Apparently, petitioner has not suffered any financial loss in terms of his salary after the accident. Accordingly, nothing is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
(iv) Loss of future earnings due to disability
33. Since the petitioner is working as Clerk in Irrigation and Water Resource Department and as such there is no loss of future earning to the petitioner on account of permanent disability as he is getting his salary on regular basis. In the facts and circumstances, nothing is awarded to the petitioner under this MACT No. 573/23 Nakul Vs Atul & Ors. Page No. 25/45 MACT No. 575/23 Ramesh Kumar Vs Atul & Ors. Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.30 12:59:59 +0530 head.
(v) Conveyance, Attendant Charges and Special Diet
34. In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the extent of permanent physical disability and the extended period of medical treatment, the petitioner is granted a sum of Rs. 35,000/- each under these heads.
(vi) Loss of amenities of life and disfigurement
35. In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the extent of permanent physical disability and the extended period of medical treatment, the petitioner is granted a sum of Rs. 35,000/- each under these heads.
ISSUE NO.3 / RELIEF
36. The injured (IN CASE/ MACT No. 573/23 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by the injured Nakul ) is thus awarded a sum of Rs.12,80,536/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Eighty Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty Six Only)(Rs.10,000 + Rs. 50,000/- + Rs.1,22,142/- + Rs.9,23,394/- + Rs. 35,000/- + Rs. 35,000/- + Rs. 35,000/- +Rs. 35,000/- + Rs. 35,000/-) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 04/07/2023. Since no interim compensation has been awarded, therefore no deduction is applicable.
MACT No. 573/23 Nakul Vs Atul & Ors. Page No. 26/45MACT No. 575/23 Ramesh Kumar Vs Atul & Ors. PANKAJ by Digitally signed PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.30 13:00:05 +0530
37. The injured (IN CASE/ MACT No. 575/23 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by the injured Ramesh Kumar) is thus awarded a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand Only) (Rs.50,000/- + Rs.35,000/ + Rs.35,000/- + Rs.35,000/-+ Rs. 35,000/- + Rs.35,000/-) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e 04/07/2023. Since no interim compensation has been awarded, therefore no deduction is applicable.
RELEASE IN CASE/ MACT No. 573/23 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Nakul):
38. Petitioner Nakul did not bother to appear before this Tribunal for recording his statement regarding financial needs and requirements.
38.1 Out of the awarded amount, Petitioner Nakul is awarded a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Only) and the said amount is directed to be kept with State Bank of India, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in MACAD in the form of 60 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 60 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 35, 36 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be MACT No. 573/23 Nakul Vs Atul & Ors. Page No. 27/45 MACT No. 575/23 Ramesh Kumar Vs Atul & Ors. PANKAJ by Digitally signed PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.30 13:00:11 +0530 released in his savings/MACT Claims SB Account as and when he furnishes the details of his bank account which is near the place of his residence to the Bank Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi under intimation to the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal. The remaining amount of Rs.2,91,824/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ninety One Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty Four Only) is also directed to be released into his above said account, which can be withdrawn and utilized by the Petitioner- Nakul.
RELEASE IN CASE/ MACT No. 575/23 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Ramesh Kumar):
39. Petitioner Ramesh Kumar did not bother to appear before this Tribunal for recording his statement regarding financial needs and requirements.
39.1 Out of the awarded amount, Petitioner Ramesh Kumar is awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) and the said amount is directed to be kept with State Bank of India, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in MACAD in the form of 10 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 10 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 35, 36 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under MACT No. 573/23 Nakul Vs Atul & Ors. Page No. 28/45 MACT No. 575/23 Ramesh Kumar Vs Atul & Ors. Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.05.30 13:00:16 +0530 Rule 150A)]. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in his savings/MACT Claims SB Account as and when he furnishes the details of his bank account which is near the place of his residence to the Bank Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi under intimation to the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal. The remaining amount of Rs.62,125/- (Rupees Sixty Two Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Five Only) is also directed to be released into his above said account, which can be withdrawn and utilized by the Petitioner- Ramesh Kumar.
40. The Bank(s) shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the petitioner(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the petitioner(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s). The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the SBI, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by the bank to the petitioner(s). The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credit by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the petitioner(s) near the place of their residence. No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of this Tribunal.
MACT No. 573/23 Nakul Vs Atul & Ors. Page No. 29/45MACT No. 575/23 Ramesh Kumar Vs Atul & Ors. PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.30 13:00:22 +0530 LIABILITY
41. So far as the plea of R-3/ Insurance Company that R-1 was driving the offending under the influence of alcohol, however, there is no cogent evidence which can substantiate the same, hence, the same is dismissed being without any evidence.
41.1 Further, on the point of liability, Ld. Counsel for R-3/ Insurance Company has submitted that R-3/ Insurance Company be exonerated from the liability on the ground that the accident took place on 16/10/2022 which is after coming into force of the Amendment Act i.e. 01/04/2022, therefore, R-3/ Insurance Company be exonerated and the directions to "pay and recover'' may not be issued. It is contended that insurance company's right to recover compensation from the owner of the offending vehicle flows from the proviso Sub Section (4) of Section 149 MV Act, 1988, however, the said proviso has been omitted by Act of 2019, and in cases of breach of policy it is only the owner against whom award can be made resulting in exoneration of the company from the liability to idemnify the owner.
41.2 Before adverting to the plea raised on behalf of R-3/ Insurance Company, it would be apposite to have a look on the underlying Aims and Objectives of the Motor Vehicle Act. A bare glance would reveal that the primary Aim is to alleviate the emotional and social trauma caused to the family which loses its MACT No. 573/23 Nakul Vs Atul & Ors. Page No.Digitally 30/45 signed MACT No. 575/23 Ramesh Kumar Vs Atul & Ors. PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.30 13:00:31 +0530 bread winner by way of adequate compensation. Also, by way of same principles protecting the victims of accident who have become disfunctional, incapacitated, suffered amputation or injuries in the accident. Further, the provisions are replaced so as to provide expeditious help to the accident victims and their families.
41.3 Further, the mandate of the judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India expounding the Aims and Objectives of the MV Act in relation to "third party'' have to be followed. In this regard, the leading judgment in relation to insurance company's right to recover from owner is `National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Swaran Singh & Ors. JT 2004 (1) SC 109`, has to be followed wherein it was observed in Para 108 as under:-
"(i)Chapter XI of the MV Act, 1988 providing compulsory insurance of vehicle against third party risk is a social welfare legislation to extent relief by compensation to victim of accident caused by use of motor vehicle. The provisions of compulsory insurance coverage of all vehicles are with this paramount object and the provision of the Act have to be so interpreted so as to effectuate the said object................'' Further, it was observed that:-
"The onus is always upon the insurance company to prove that the driver had no valid driving license and there was breach of policy condition. Where the driver does not possess the valid driving license and there are breach of policy conditions, "Pay & Recover'' can be ordered in case of third party risks. The Tribunal is required to consider as to MACT No. 573/23 Nakul Vs Atul & Ors. Page No. 31/45 MACT No. 575/23 Ramesh Kumar Vs Atul & Ors. Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.05.30 13:00:42 +0530 whether the owner has taken reasonable care to find out as to whether the driving license produced by the driver, does not fulfill the requirement of law or not will have to determine in each case.'' 41.4 Further, in United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Santro Devi & Ors. (2009) 1 SCC 558, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that:-
"The provision of compulsory insurance have been framed to advance a social object. It is in a way part of the social justice doctrine. When a certificate of insurance is issued, in law, the insurance company is bound to reimburse the owner. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that a contract of insurance must fulfill the statutory requirement of formation of a valid contract but in case of a third party risk, the question has to be considered from a different angle. It was further held that Section 146 of the Act gives complete protection to third party in respect of that or bodily injury or damage to the property while using the vehicle in public place. For that purpose, insurance of the vehicle has been made compulsory to the vehicle or to the owner. This would further reflect that compulsory insurance is obviously for the benefit of Third Party............'' .
41.5 Further, in New Asiatic Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Pessumal Dhanamal Aswani & Ors. AIR (1964) SC 1736, Hon'ble Apex Court observed that:-
"Once the company has undertaken the liability to third party incurred by the person specified in the policy, the third party right to recover any amount under or by virtue of the provision of the Act is not affected by any condition in the policy.'' 41.6 Further, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has recently MACT No. 573/23 Nakul Vs Atul & Ors. Page No. 32/45 MACT No. 575/23 Ramesh Kumar Vs Atul & Ors. PANKAJ by Digitally signed PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.30 13:00:50 +0530 ordered insurance company to deposit the compensation awarded while admitting the appeal in the matter of Go-Digit General Insurance Ltd. Vs Aarti Pathania & Ors. MAC. App. 183/20224.
41.7 Also, similar issue has been decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in a case titled as ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Smt. Arti Devi and Others, Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC;14110, decided on 31.01.2025. It is held by Hon'ble High Court that "Pay and Recover'' principle is still applicable.
41.8 Now, adverting to the plea of R-3/ Insurance Company seeking exoneration, it is observed that same is against the spirit and Aims and Objectives of the Act. The Act is meant for the welfare of the victims of road accident. The Act intends to give monetary relief to the families who lose their bread winners or who have become incapacitated following accident and the same cannot be ignored. Further, the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court not only serves as a guiding pillar but a direction to be followed in letter and spirit. The said dictums of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are binding on this Tribunal.
41.9 In cases of violation of any policy condition by the owner or driver, the victim's right should not be prejudiced. Apparently, the offending vehicle is a Motorcycle and it is almost impossible for the victim to recover the compensation amount MACT No. 573/23 Nakul Vs Atul & Ors. Page No. 33/45 MACT No. 575/23 Ramesh Kumar Vs Atul & Ors. Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.05.30 13:00:56 +0530 from owner and driver. If the contention of the R-3/ Insurance Company is accepted, the award would be rendered meaningless thereby defeating the Aims and Objectives of the Act. Further, it would be travesty of justice if the injured is again made to run from pillar to post to realize the awarded amount from driver and owner while insurance company watch at its pleasure. Also, it is pertinent to note that in such cases execution has become almost impossible at the end of the petitioner. The breach of any condition of the insurance policy is a matter between the insurer and the insured. The principle of "Pay and Recover'' would still be applicable to prevent miscarriage of justice and to meet the ends of justice. The Act fundamentally aims to protect the victim's right and also the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Therefore, the insurer has to pay to the victim/ petitioner as a valid insurance policy was effected on the date of accident. But at the same time, R-3/ Insurance Company is entitled to recover any such sum from the insured, if the insurer was not otherwise liable by virtue of the condition of the contract of the insurance indicated by the policy.
41.10 Therefore, in view of the foregoing, this Tribunal is of considered view that the Amendment Act is not an impediment in right of the victim as liability of the insurer to pay the claimant is still continuing. Further, insurer will have the right to recover the said amount from the owner. Therefore, the principle of "Pay and Recover'' is still applicable which is advancing the spirit of MACT No. 573/23 Nakul Vs Atul & Ors. Page No. 34/45 MACT No. 575/23 Ramesh Kumar Vs Atul & Ors. PANKAJ by Digitally signed PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.30 13:01:03 +0530 the Act and the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Accordingly, this entitles R-3 to be granted recovery rights against R-1 and R-2. Ordered accordingly.
42. R-3/ Insurance Company is directed to deposit the above award amount within 30 days from the date of this Award by way of NEFT or RTGS mode in the account of this Tribunal maintained with SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (account holder's name-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal 02 Central, A/C No. 40743576901, IFSC Code SBIN0000726 under intimation to the petitioner and this Tribunal in terms of the format for remittance of compensation as provided in Divisional Manager Vs. Rajesh, 2016 SCC Online Mad. 1913 (and reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the orders dated 16.03.2021 and 16.11.2021 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors) along with interest @ 9% per annum, failing which it will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
43. 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)]. Further Nazir is directed to maintain the record in MACT No. 573/23 Nakul Vs Atul & Ors. Page No. 35/45 MACT No. 575/23 Ramesh Kumar Vs Atul & Ors. Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.05.30 13:01:10 +0530 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).
44. 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. 524/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
45. 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.
File be consigned to Record Room. A separate file be prepared for compliance report and Digitally signed put up the same on 02.07.2025. PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.30 13:01:18 +0530 Announced in the open court (DR. PANKAJ SHARMA) on this 30.05.2025 PO MACT-02 (CENTRAL) DELHI MACT No. 573/23 Nakul Vs Atul & Ors. Page No. 36/45 MACT No. 575/23 Ramesh Kumar Vs Atul & Ors. Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.05.30 13:01:22 +0530 FORM - XVI, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A) SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE
1. Date of accident : 16/10/2022
2. Name of the injured : Nakul
3. Age of the injured : 23 years
4. Occupation of the injured : Private Job
5. Income of the injured : As per Minimum Wages of a Matriculate Person prevailing in Delhi at the relevant time
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by injured : Different Hospital
8. Period of Hospitalization : Different Periods
9. Whether any permanent disability ? If yes, give details : YES
10. Computation of Compensation MACT No. 573/23 Nakul Vs Atul & Ors. Page No. 37/45 Digitally signed MACT No. 575/23 Ramesh Kumar Vs Atul & Ors. by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2025.05.30 13:01:31 +0530 S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss (I) Expenditure on treatment Rs.10,000/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs.35,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 35,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs. 35,000/-
(v) Cost of artificial limb NIL
(vi) Loss of earning capacity NIL
(vii) Loss of Income Rs.1,22,142/-
(viii) Any other loss which may NIL
require any special
treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his
life
MACT No. 573/23 Nakul Vs Atul & Ors. Page No. 38/45
MACT No. 575/23 Ramesh Kumar Vs Atul & Ors. Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2025.05.30
13:01:47
+0530
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental NIL
and physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.35,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration Rs.35,000/-
(v) Loss of marriage prospects NIL
(vi) Loss of earning, N.A.
inconvenience, hardships,
disappointment, frustration,
mental stress, dejectment
and unhappiness in future
life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability 15% w.r.t. right lower limb assessed and nature of disability as permanent or temporary MACT No. 573/23 Nakul Vs Atul & Ors. Page No. 39/45 MACT No. 575/23 Ramesh Kumar Vs Atul & Ors. Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.05.30 13:01:53 +0530
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of N.A expectation of life span on account of disability 15%
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - Rs.9,23,394/-
(Income x % Earning Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.12,80,536/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9% per annum
16. Interest amount up to the Rs.2,11,288/-
date of award
17. Total amount including Rs.14,91,824/-
interest
18. Award amount released Rs.2,91,824/-
MACT No. 573/23 Nakul Vs Atul & Ors. Page No. 40/45MACT No. 575/23 Ramesh Kumar Vs Atul & Ors. Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.30 13:01:58 +0530
19. Award amount kept in As per award FDRs
20. Mode of disbursement of Mentioned in the award the award amount to the claimant(s).
21. Next date for compliance of 02.07.2025 the award.
FORM - XVI, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A) SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE
1. Date of accident : 16/10/2022
2. Name of the injured : Ramesh Kumar
3. Age of the injured : 56 years
4. Occupation of the injured : Govt. Job
5. Income of the injured : As per salary slip
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by injured : Different Hospital
8. Period of Hospitalization : Different Periods MACT No. 573/23 Nakul Vs Atul & Ors. Page No. 41/45 MACT No. 575/23 Ramesh Kumar Vs Atul & Ors. PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.30 13:02:04 +0530
9. Whether any permanent disability ? If yes, give details : YES
10. Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss (I) Expenditure on treatment NIL
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs.35,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 35,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs. 35,000/-
(v) Cost of artificial limb NIL
(vi) Loss of earning capacity NIL
(vii) Loss of Income NIL
MACT No. 573/23 Nakul Vs Atul & Ors. Page No. 42/45
MACT No. 575/23 Ramesh Kumar Vs Atul & Ors. Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.05.30
13:02:09 +0530
(viii) Any other loss which may NIL
require any special
treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his
life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental NIL
and physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.35,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration Rs.35,000/-
(v) Loss of marriage prospects NIL
(vi) Loss of earning, N.A.
inconvenience, hardships,
disappointment, frustration,
mental stress, dejectment
and unhappiness in future
life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
MACT No. 573/23 Nakul Vs Atul & Ors. Page No. 43/45MACT No. 575/23 Ramesh Kumar Vs Atul & Ors. Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.30 13:02:25 +0530
(i) Percentage of disability 19% w.r.t. left lower limb assessed and nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of N.A expectation of life span on account of disability NIL
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - NIL (Income x % Earning Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.2,25,000/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9% per annum
16. Interest amount up to the Rs.37,125/-
date of award
17. Total amount including Rs.2,62,125/-
interest MACT No. 573/23 Nakul Vs Atul & Ors. Page No. 44/45 MACT No. 575/23 Ramesh Kumar Vs Atul & Ors. PANKAJ by Digitally signed PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.30 13:02:30 +0530
18. Award amount released Rs.62,125/-
19. Award amount kept in As per award FDRs
20. Mode of disbursement of Mentioned in the award the award amount to the claimant(s).
21. Next date for compliance of 02.07.2025 the award.
CONCLUSION:-
1. As per award dated 30.05.2025.
2. A separate file is ordered to be prepared by the Nazir with directions to put up the same on 02.07.2025.Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA
PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2025.05.30
13:02:34
+0530
(DR. PANKAJ SHARMA)
PO MACT-02 (CENTRAL)
DELHI/30.05.2025
MACT No. 573/23 Nakul Vs Atul & Ors. Page No. 45/45
MACT No. 575/23 Ramesh Kumar Vs Atul & Ors. Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.05.30
13:02:37 +0530