Delhi District Court
Mohd Abdul (I)(Fir267/2021/Timarpur) vs Amandeep Singh (Oic) on 16 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010133292021
MACT No. : 744/2021
FIR No. : 267/2021
PS : Timarpur
u/s : 279/337/338/304A IPC
Mr. Mohd. Abdul (injured)
S/o. Sh. Rafik Miyan,
R/o. H.No.800-B, Gali No. 38,
Sadarpur near Khazoor Masjid,
Sector-45, Noida, U.P.
......Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Amandeep Singh (driver of the offending vehicle)
S/o. Sh. Balbir Singh,
R/o. Village Malve Ki Kothi, Umarpura,
PS Batala City, District Gurdaspur, Punjab.
2. Smt. Karamjit Kaur (owner of the offending vehicle)
W/o. Sh. Surjit Singh,
R/o. H.405, Gali No.4, near Alipur Road Dasan Nagar,
Patiala, Punjab.
3. The Oriental Insurance Company (Insurer)
A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi.
......Respondents
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16
16:51:36
+0530
MACT No.744/2021 Mohd. Abdul Vs. Amandeep Singh and ors. Page 1 of 45
Date of filing of DAR : 06.10.2021
Judgment reserved on : 08.07.2025
Date of Award : 16.07.2025
AWAR D
1. The Detailed Accident Report (DAR) was filed on
06.10.2021 which was treated as a claim petition. The Road Traffic
Accident in question took place on 05.08.2021 at about 01:10 PM near
Nirmal Hirday Church Ring Road, Majnu Ka Tila, Delhi. Mr. Mohd.
Abdul (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) had suffered grievous
injuries in the said accident which was allegedly caused by vehicle
bearing registration No. PB-11CF-9174 (hereinafter referred to as the
offending vehicle) The said vehicle was being driven by respondent
No.1, Mr. Amandeep Singh; owned by respondent no. 2, Smt. Karamjit
Kaur and insured with respondent no.3, The Oriental Insurance
Company.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The brief facts that have emerged from the DAR are that on 18.03.2016, on receipt of information of an accident vide DD No. 38A, the information of present accident was handed over to ASI Sunil Kumar, who along with HC Manoj went to the spot i.e. near Nirmal Hirday Church Ring Road, Majnu Ka Tila, Delhi where many people were gathered, Punjab Roadways Bus bearing no. PB-11CF-9174 was stationed on roadside and Scooty bearing no. UP-16CA-2105 was stationed on the footpath in an accidental condition. The driver of the offending bus was caught hold by Ct. Neeraj, whose name was later Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16 16:51:41 +0530 MACT No.744/2021 Mohd. Abdul Vs. Amandeep Singh and ors. Page 2 of 45 revealed as Sh. Amandeep Singh. Ct. Neeraj told the IO that one auto rickshaw took all the three injured to Trauma Centre Hospital. No eye witness was found at the spot. After leaving HC Manoj at the spot, IO went to Trauma Centre Hospital, where injured Abdul vide MLC No. 24232/21 was found admitted. Another injured namely Smt. Shahjahan (wife of injured Abdul) was also found admitted vide MLC No.24233/21. Vide MLC No. 24234/21, one Sohail (son of injured Abdul) aged about 9 years was also found admitted. Upon his medical examination, doctors declared him as "Brought Dead".
3. Thereafter, IO recorded the statement of injured Abdul, in which he had stated that "he is carpenter by profession. On 05.08.2021 at about 1:20 PM, he alongwith his wife Shahjahan and his son Sohail (aged 9 years) were going to attend a marriage at Bawana by scooty. As and when they reached near Nirmal Hirday Church Ring Road, Majnu Ka Tila, Delhi, suddenly a Punjab Roadways Bus hit them from the back side and he, his wife alongwith their scooty struck under the Bus and his son fell away at some distance. After accident public persons stopped that bus and the police official also reached at the spot. Police official managed to pull out his scooty after taking the bus back. Police officials sent us to Trauma Centre Hospital in an auto. The registration number of the bus is PB-11CF-9174. The driver of the bus came down from the bus and he can identify the bus driver. He requested to take action against the driver of the offending vehicle, who had caused the accident due to rash and negligent driving." On the basis of PCR Call and MLCs, offence under section 279/337/304A IPC was found to have been committed and accordingly, FIR was registered. Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16 16:51:55 +0530 MACT No.744/2021 Mohd. Abdul Vs. Amandeep Singh and ors. Page 3 of 45
4. During the course of investigation, after preparing rukka, IO handed over the same to HC Manoj and sent him to the police station for registration of FIR of the present case. Thereafter, IO called the Crime Team at the spot and got conducted the inspection and photographs of the place of the accident. Crime team collected the exhibits and handed over the same to the IO in evidence. Thereafter, IO recorded the statement of Crime Team. Thereafter, HC Manoj reached there and handed over the computerized FIR to IO. Thereafter, the IO prepared the site plan of the spot of accident. He also took both the vehicles i.e. offending bus bearing no. PB-11CF-9174 and Scooty bearing no. UP-16CA-2105 of the victim into custody. IO interrogated the driver of the offending vehicle and the driver had admitted his offence. Thereafter, IO arrested the driver Amandeep Singh, however, since the offence was bailable, he was released on bail on furnishing of bail bonds. IO had stored/taken the CCTV footage of the place of accident into the pendrive and taken the same into his custody under certificate u/s.65B Evidence Act. Thereafter, both the vehicles had deposited in the Maalkhana and recorded the statement of other witnesses.
5. On 06.08.2021, IO recorded the statement of the relative of deceased Sohani regarding his identity and got conducted the post mortem vide PM No.1002/2021. Thereafter, IO had handed over the body of deceased to his brother Gulab Ahmad. On 07.08.2021, IO collected the documents i.e. Original RC, photocopies of insurance policy, permit and fitness certificate of the offending vehicle from the husband of the owner of the offending vehicle and took the same into Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16 16:52:03 +0530 MACT No.744/2021 Mohd. Abdul Vs. Amandeep Singh and ors. Page 4 of 45 the custody. Thereafter, the IO got conducted the mechanical inspection of both the vehicles and collected the report. Thereafter, IO recorded the statements u/s. 161 Cr.PC and after taking the photographs of the offending bus bearing no. PB-11CF-9174 and panchnama, released the offending vehicle on superdari to the husband of the owner of the offending vehicle Sh. Surjeet Singh. Thereafter, the case file of MACT had been marked to MACT Cell North and the present case was accordingly assigned to Senior Officer SI.
6. Thereafter, IO/SI collected the other MLCs and deposited the same for final opinion in the hospital. Thereafter, the scooty of victim bearing no. UP-16CA-2105 was got released on superdari. During investigation, IO/SI collected the MLCs in which the MLC no. 24232/21 of injured Abdul was opined by the doctors as "Grievous", MLC no. 24233/21 of injured Shahjahan was opined by the doctors as "Simple". On the MLC of injured Abdul, the offence u/s. 338 IPC was added due to the grievous injury opined by the doctors. The owner of the offending vehicle did not produced the DL of the driver of the offending vehicle, therefore, the offence u/s.3/181 MV Act was added. Thereafter, IO got verified all the documents pertaining to the offending vehicle and the same were found to be correct. After completion of investigation, chargesheet for the offences u/s 279/337/338/304A IPC & 3/181 MV Act was filed against the driver of the offending vehicle, Mr. Amandeep Singh before the concerned Ld. JMFC and the DAR was filed before this Tribunal.
7. Reply on behalf of respondent no. 3 was filed on Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16 16:52:09 MACT No.744/2021 Mohd. Abdul Vs. Amandeep Singh and ors. Page 5 of 45 +0530 24.12.2022. No written statement was filed by respondent nos.1 & 2.
Respondent nos. 1 & 2 did not appear before this Tribunal and were, thus, proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 15.05.2024 & 23.01.2025.
ISSUES
8. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated 08.07.2025, this Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the injured suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 05.08.2021 at about 01:10 PM near Nirmal Hirday Church outer Ring Road, Majnu Ka Tila, Delhi involving vehicle bearing registration no. PB-11CF-9174 driven rashly and negligently by respondent no.1 Amandeep Singh, owned by respondent no. 2 Karamjit Kaur and insured with respondent no. 3 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
9. The petitioner/injured examined himself as PW-1. PW1 has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW1/A. He stated in his evidence that he was a Carpenter by profession and was living with his wife, three sons and two daughters. He stated that he had one another son namely Sohail Safi, who died in the present accident.
He stated that on 05.08.2021 at about 1:10 PM, when he was traveling Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16
16:52:21
+0530
MACT No.744/2021 Mohd. Abdul Vs. Amandeep Singh and ors. Page 6 of 45
on his two-wheeler bearing registration no. UP-16CA-2105 with his wife and son Sohail, the offending vehicle bearing no. PB-11CF-9174, driven by the respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner hit him from the back with utmost force. He stated that due to the said accident, he and his wife were thrown under the offending vehicle where they got stuck while his son was thrown out of the scooter and he landed at some distance away. After some time some police officials reached at the spot and they took him and his family to Lok Nayak Hospital, Delhi where they were given medical treatment.
10. He suffered grievous injuries in his lower left limb due to which his left leg was amputated. He has suffered 85% permanent physical disability due to the same. His son expired due to the said accident. Further he stated that he wished to get a prosthetic limb for himself. He also stated that his yearly income was more than Rs. 5 Lakhs prior to the accident. Further he stated that he was the sole earning member of his family. He had two unmarried daughters and he will have to incur expenses for their marriage in future. Further it was stated the due to his accident, he has lost his capacity to work. He relied the following documents :
1. Copy of Aadhar Card of deponent is Ex. PW1/1 (OSR).
2. Copy of Driving Licence is Ex. PW1/2.
3. Copy of Driving Licence retrieved from Digi Locker is Ex. PW1/3.
4. Original disability certificate issued by Aruna Asaf Ali Govt. Hospital is Ex. PW1/4.
5. Copy of quotation/estimate of Rs.8,05,400/- for prosthetic leg alongwith additional estimated maintenance cost by Ideal Artificial Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16 16:52:28 +0530 MACT No.744/2021 Mohd. Abdul Vs. Amandeep Singh and ors. Page 7 of 45 Limbs Solution is Ex. PW1/5 (colly) (OSR).
6. Copy of quotation/estimate of Rs.7,77,000/- for prosthetic leg by Rayon Rehab is Ex. PW1/6(OSR).
7. Computer generated income tax return of assessment year 2018-2019 is Ex. PW1/7 (colly) (running into 2 pages)
8. Computer generated income tax return of assessment year 2019-2020 is Ex.PW1/8 (colly) (running into 9 pages)
9. Computer generated income tax return of assessment year 2020-2021 is Ex. PW1/9 (colly) (running into 11 pages)
10. Copy of Aadhar card of daughter Sabana Khatun of deponent is Ex. PW1/10 (OSR).
11. Copy of Aadhar Card of another daughter Rubina Khatun of deponent is Ex. PW1/11 (OSR).
12. Original 65-B Certificate under Indian Evidence Act, 1872 of legal clerk of counsel for the petitioner is Ex. PW1/12.
11. Thereafter, the petitioner examined PW2 Sh. Arun Kumar from Ideal Artificial Limbs Solution who proved on record the quotation issued by the said company for a prosthetic leg to the petitioner. His authority letter was proved as Ex. PW2/1 and the quotation was proved on record as Ex. PW1/5. Thereafter, PE was closed vide order dated 14.08.2024.
RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE
12. In its evidence, the respondent no. 3 produced R3W1 Sh. Pawan Kumar, Junior Assistant, Transport Department, Govt. of UP, who proved that the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent no. 1 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16 16:52:35 +0530 MACT No.744/2021 Mohd. Abdul Vs. Amandeep Singh and ors. Page 8 of 45 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. His authority letter was proved as Ex. R3W1/1 and the report was proved as Ex. R3W1/2.
13. Thereafter, the respondent no.3 produced R3W2 Ms. Bharti Meena, Deputy Manager, Oriental Insurance Company, who proved on record the following documents:
1. Her authority letter as Ex. R3W2/1.
2. Copy of the insurance policy as Ex. R3W2/2.
3. Copy of the notice under Order XII Rule 8 issued to respondent no. 2 for production of the original driving licence as Ex. R3W2/3
4. Postal receipts of the same as Ex R3W2/4.
Thereafter, RE was closed vide order dated 28.04.2025.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
14. The Petitioner/injured filed his duly filled Form XIV and his financial statement was recorded. Final arguments were heard on behalf of the petitioner as well as respondent no.3.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
15. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 and perused the record. My findings on the various issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1:
Whether the injured suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 05.08.2021 at about 01:10 PM near Nirmal Hirday Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16 16:52:46 +0530 MACT No.744/2021 Mohd. Abdul Vs. Amandeep Singh and ors. Page 9 of 45 Church outer Ring Road, Majnu Ka Tila, Delhi involving vehicle bearing registration no. PB-11CF-9174 driven rashly and negligently by respondent no.1 Amandeep Singh, owned by respondent no. 2 Karamjit Kaur and insured with respondent no. 3 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.? OPP
16. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that on 05.08.2021 at about 01:10 PM near Nirmal Hirday Church Ring Road, Majnu Ka Tila, Delhi while he was going on his scooty with his wife and child, the respondent no. 1 was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and he hit his scooty from the back side. The petitioner has reiterated these allegations on oath. He was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3. During the course of cross examination certain suggestions were put by Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3 to the petitioner that the accident was caused by his rash and negligence and not by the rash and negligence of respondent no. 1. However, all these suggestions were denied by the petitioner. The petitioner as such remained firm on his testimony and nothing contrary could be brought out.
17. Further perusal of the DAR shows that the scooty and the offending vehicle were seized by the IO from the place of accident. Furthermore, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 i.e. the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle have been proceeded against ex-parte and they did not bother to join the present proceedings. No cross examination was done by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 qua the fact that the accident was Digitally signed RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.07.16 16:53:00 +0530 MACT No.744/2021 Mohd. Abdul Vs. Amandeep Singh and ors. Page 10 of 45 not caused by the rashness and negligence of the respondent no.1. 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.
18. Further, it is settled law that the petitioner cannot be expected to prove the accident beyond reasonable doubts and the principle of res ipse loquitor should apply which means that the "accident speaks for itself". Thus, once it has been established in DAR and chargesheet that the accident had taken place, the burden shifts on the respondents to prove that they were not responsible for the accident which the respondents have failed to discharge. 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.
19. Further, it is argued by Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16 16:53:11 +0530 MACT No.744/2021 Mohd. Abdul Vs. Amandeep Singh and ors. Page 11 of 45 that in the present matter, there are three connected claim petitions bearing nos. 744/2021, 743/2021 and 742/2021. It is submitted that the present petitioner Sh. Mohd. Abdul was examined as witness in all the three cases and his cross examination was also conducted in all the three cases. It submitted that there are certain contradictions between his testimonies recorded in all the three cases such as the speed of his scooty, the time of the accident etc. Hence, his testimony cannot be relied upon.
20. However, in the opinion of the court even if there are such contradictions, the same cannot be considered to be fatal. It has to be considered that in the present matter, the incident of the accident cannot be denied. It is pertinent to mention here that in the 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.
21. 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 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16 16:53:20 +0530 MACT No.744/2021 Mohd. Abdul Vs. Amandeep Singh and ors. Page 12 of 45 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 chargesheet against Respondent 2 prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. Further, even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, this Court opined that the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal.
28. Reliance placed upon the decisions in Minu B. Mehta and Meena Variyal, by the respondents, in our opinion, is of no avail. The dictum in these cases is on the matter in issue in the case concerned. Similarly, even the dictum in Surender Kumar Arora will be of no avail. In the present case, considering the entirety of the pleadings, evidence and circumstances on record and in particular the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the factum of negligence of Respondent 2, the driver of the offending jeep, the High Court committed manifest error in taking a contrary view which, in our opinion, is an error apparent on the face of record and manifestly wrong."
22. 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 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16 16:53:27 +0530 MACT No.744/2021 Mohd. Abdul Vs. Amandeep Singh and ors. Page 13 of 45 caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent no. 1. From the DAR, it also stands established that respondent no. 2, Smt. Karamjit Kaur was the registered owner of the offending vehicle. It is also an admitted position that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no.3, The Oriental Insurance Company vide Policy No. 233500/31/2021/3311 valid w.e.f. 22.10.2020 to 21.10.2021. The factum of the said insurance is also admitted by the respondent no.3 insurance company.
Contributory negligence:
23. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 that in the present matter, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was driving his scooty alongwith his wife and child. It is stated that as per the traffic rules, only two persons are allowed on a scooty or a two-wheeler. It is submitted that as the petitioner was indulged in triple riding on the scooty, he is guilty of contributory negligence. However, in Mohammed Siddique vs National Insurance Company (2020) 2 SCALE 565 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"12. It is seen from the material on record that the accident occurred at about 2:00 a.m. on 5.09.2008. Therefore, there was no possibility of heavy traffic on the road. The finding of fact by the Tribunal, as confirmed by the High Court, was that the motor cycle in which the deceased was travelling, was hit by the car from behind and that therefore it was clear that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the car. In fact, the High Court confirms in paragraph 4 of the impugned order that the motor cycle was hit by the car from behind. Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16 16:53:35 +0530 MACT No.744/2021 Mohd. Abdul Vs. Amandeep Singh and ors. Page 14 of 45 But it nevertheless holds that 3 persons on a motor cycle could have added to the imbalance. The relevant portion of paragraph 4 of the order of the High Court reads as follows:
"On careful assessment of the evidence led, this Court finds substance in the plea of the insurance company. While it is correct that the offending car had no business to strike from behind against the motorcycle moving ahead of it, even if the motor cycle was changing lane to allow another vehicle to overtake, the fact that a motor vehicle meant for only two persons to ride was carrying, besides the driver, two persons on the pillion would undoubtedly have added to the imbalance."
13. But the above reason, in our view, is flawed. The fact that the deceased was riding on a motor cycle along with the driver and another, may not, by itself, without anything more, make him guilty of contributory negligence. At the most it would make him guilty of being a party to the violation of the law. Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, imposes a restriction on the driver of a two wheeled motor cycle, not to carry more than one person on the motor cycle. Section 194C inserted by the Amendment Act 32 of 2019, prescribes a penalty for violation of safety measures for motor cycle drivers and pillion riders. Therefore, the fact that a person was a pillion rider on a motor cycle along with the driver and one more person on the pillion, may be a violation of the law. But such violation by itself, without anything more, cannot lead to a finding of contributory negligence, unless it is established that his very act of riding along Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16 16:53:42 +0530 MACT No.744/2021 Mohd. Abdul Vs. Amandeep Singh and ors. Page 15 of 45 with two others, contributed either to the accident or to the impact of the accident upon the victim. There must either be a causal connection between the violation and the accident or a causal connection between the violation and the impact of the accident upon the victim. It may so happen at times, that the accident could have been averted or the injuries sustained could have been of a lesser degree, if there had been no violation of the law by the victim. What could otherwise have resulted in a simple injury, might have resulted in a grievous injury or even death due to the violation of the law by the victim. It is in such cases, where, but for the violation of the law, either the accident could have been averted or the impact could have been minimized, that the principle of contributory negligence could be invoked. It is not the case of the insurer that the accident itself occurred as a result of three persons riding on a motor cycle. It is not even the case of the insurer that the accident would have been averted, if three persons were not riding on the motor cycle. The fact that the motor cycle was hit by the car from behind, is admitted. Interestingly, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the deceased was wearing a helmet and that the deceased was knocked down after the car hit the motor cycle from behind, are all not assailed. Therefore, the finding of the High Court that 2 persons on the pillion of the motor cycle, could have added to the imbalance, is nothing but presumptuous and is not based either upon pleading or upon the evidence on record. Nothing was extracted from PW3 to the effect that 2 persons on the pillion added to the imbalance.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16
16:53:48
+0530
MACT No.744/2021 Mohd. Abdul Vs. Amandeep Singh and ors. Page 16 of 45
14. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to show that the wrongful act on the part of the deceased victim contributed either to the accident or to the nature of the injuries sustained, the victim could not have been held guilty of contributory negligence. Hence the reduction of 10% towards contributory negligence, is clearly unjustified and the same has to be set aside. "
24. In the present matter as well, there is nothing on record to suggest that due to the triple riding by the petitioner and his family, the accident was caused. It is proved on record that the offending vehicle hit the scooty of the petitioner from behind. Hence, the petitioner cannot be held liable for contributory negligence.
25. It is also submitted by Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3 that the petitioner and his family members were not wearing any helmets while riding the scooty. However, as such no evidence has been led by the respondent no. 3 to prove this facts. Even otherwise, non wearing of the helmet by the petitioner did not affect the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner in the present matter. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has suffered grievous injuries in his leg and not head. Hence, the amount of compensation cannot be affected due to this reason.
The injury:
26. Further, the onus to prove that the petitioner had suffered injuries by way of the said accident was on the petitioner. In this regard, Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: SINGLA 2025.07.16 16:53:54 +0530 MACT No.744/2021 Mohd. Abdul Vs. Amandeep Singh and ors. Page 17 of 45 the petitioner has relied upon his MLC bearing no. 24232/21 prepared at Lok Nayak Hospital, Delhi dated 05.08.2021 as per which it has been opined by the concerned doctor that there was history of road traffic accident and he suffered injuries at his left leg. There was a crushed injury at his left leg. Further, he suffered from lacerations and his muscles bone and tender was exposed. Further, the petitioner has relied upon the X-ray report issued by the Lok Nayak Hospital of the same date as per which there is displaced fracture of shaft of left femure and comminuted fracture in his leg. It is also a matter of record that the petitioner has suffered amputation of his left leg above knee. This is also proved on record by way of the disability certificate which is Ex. PW1/4.
27. One objection was taken by Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3 that the concerned doctor who issued the disability certificate was not produced in the witness box. However, in the opinion of the court, the same is immaterial. It is a matter of record that directions were issued by this court to the concerned hospital for preparation of the disability certificate and the disability certificate has been filed by the concerned hospital in the court itself. It is not the case that the petitioner went to the hospital privately and got the disability certificate prepared himself. Reliance placed on judgment of 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. Hence, it is proved on record that the petitioner has suffered grievous injury and amputation. Further as per the disability certificate Ex. PW1/4, he has suffered 85% permanent disability in his left leg Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA Date:
SINGLA 2025.07.16 16:53:59 +0530 MACT No.744/2021 Mohd. Abdul Vs. Amandeep Singh and ors. Page 18 of 45 lower limb which is non progressive and not likely to improve.
28. 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. Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? (OPP)
29. The onus to prove this issue was also upon the petitioner. In view of the observations as given in issue no.1, 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 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16 16:54:06 +0530 MACT No.744/2021 Mohd. Abdul Vs. Amandeep Singh and ors. Page 19 of 45 as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The Court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - 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;
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16 16:54:13 +0530 MACT No.744/2021 Mohd. Abdul Vs. Amandeep Singh and ors. Page 20 of 45
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv).
30. 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:
31. The petitioner has claimed Rs. 2,00,000/- towards medical expenses but he has not filed any medical bill on record. It is stated that the said amount is claimed in view of the injuries suffered by him and as the bills could not be preserved. It is a matter of record that the petitioner had been treated at a government hospital. Further, in the Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: SINGLA 2025.07.16 16:54:18 +0530 MACT No.744/2021 Mohd. Abdul Vs. Amandeep Singh and ors. Page 21 of 45 absence of any medical bills, the petitioner/injured shall not be entitled to any amount towards medical expenses.
Loss of income:
32. In this regard, the petitioner has claimed that he was self employed and doing carpentry work. He has further alleged that he was earning an annual income of Rs. 5,70,334/-. It is stated that due to the accident, the petitioner has suffered a permanent disability of 85% in his left lower limb, resulting into above knee amputation of his left leg. Hence, it is argued that since the accident, his functional disability is 100% and has suffered complete loss of earnings.
33. To prove the same, the petitioner has relied upon his Income Tax Returns for the period 2018-2019, 2019-2020 and 2020- 2021 which are proved as Ex. PW1/7, Ex.PW1/8 and Ex. PW1/9 respectively. Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3 has argued that the said ITRs cannot be relied upon as the concerned witness from the Income Tax Department was not summoned. It is argued that the said ITRs are computer generated copies. A certificate under Section 65B, Indian Evidence Act is also placed on record to prove the authenticity of the same, though the same is of the clerk of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and not the petitioner himself. Further, Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3 has argued that the said clerk was also produced in the witness box. Hence, it is argued that as such the said certificate is not proved.
34. However, this Tribunal is unable to agree to the said Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16 MACT No.744/2021 Mohd. Abdul Vs. Amandeep Singh and ors. Page 22 of 45 16:54:26 +0530 argument. Admittedly, the said certificate is not proved on record as per law. However, as mentioned above, the said ITRs are computer generated copies. Further, when the petitioner entered the witness box as PW1, as such no cross-examination was conducted by the Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 upon the authenticity of these documents. A general suggestion has been put that the documents relied upon by the petitioner are false and fabricated. It is a settled principle of law that where the respondent/defendant fails to cross-examine a witness on a specific fact, that fact is deemed to be admitted. Hence, in the opinion of this Tribunal, the ITRs stand proved.
35. Perusal of the ITR Ex.PW1/9 shows that the petitioner had a gross income of Rs.5,70,334/- for the assessment year 2020-21. 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 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16 16:54:32 +0530 MACT No.744/2021 Mohd. Abdul Vs. Amandeep Singh and ors. Page 23 of 45 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."
36. As per his ITR Ex.PW1/9, his total taxable income was Rs.4,92,970/- and the chargeable income tax was Rs. 12,149/-. Further, as per his ITR, he was not paying any rent. Hence, his annual net income is assessed to be Rs.4,80,821/-. Accordingly, his monthly income at the time of the accident i.e. on 05.08.2021 is assessed to be Rs. 40,068.41/- (rounded off to Rs. 40,069/-). 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. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to the loss of income for 06 months i.e. Rs. 40,069/- x 6 = Rs. 2,40,414/-.
Special diet:
37. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 25,000/- per month towards special diet. Although, there is no bill to support his plea, but keeping in view the nature of injury suffered by the petitioner, it seems Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16 16:54:37 +0530 MACT No.744/2021 Mohd. Abdul Vs. Amandeep Singh and ors. Page 24 of 45 that he must have required special diet and must have incurred expenditure towards special diet, therefore, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under the head of special diet.
Conveyance charges:
38. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards conveyance charges. Admittedly there is no document showing expense on conveyance, however, considering his 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. 15,000/- towards conveyance charges.
Attendant charges:
39. The petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards conveyance charges. Admittedly there is no document showing expense on an attendant, however, considering his injuries, this Tribunal is of the view that the petitioner must have spent money on an attendant thus, the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards attendant charges.
Pain & Suffering:
40. The petitioner/injured has claim Rs. 10,00,000/- under the head pain and suffering. As per medical documents, the petitioner has suffered grievous injuries and also sustained 85% permanent physical impairment disability in relation to his left lower limb. 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 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16 16:54:42 +0530 MACT No.744/2021 Mohd. Abdul Vs. Amandeep Singh and ors. Page 25 of 45 the extent and nature of the injuries suffered by petitioner and duration of the treatment taken by him etc., an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- 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.1,00,000/- towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner.
Mental and physical shock:
41. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs. 10,00,000/- 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.1,00,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under head of "Loss due to Mental & Physical Shock".
Loss of amenities:
42. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs. 2,00,000/- for loss of amenities. 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 loss of amenities. Hence, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under head of "Loss of amenities".
Disfiguration:
43. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- under this head.
Loss of marriage prospects
44. Nil. RUCHIKA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16 16:54:49 +0530 MACT No.744/2021 Mohd. Abdul Vs. Amandeep Singh and ors. Page 26 of 45 Loss of earning, inconvenience, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.:
45. The petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- under this head. It is stated that due to loss of his limb, he has been forced to modify his home and life entirely to accommodate his condition. Considering the nature of the injuries suffered by the petitioner, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
Loss of future earnings due to disability:
46. Petitioner claimed in his affidavit Ex. PW1/A that he has become permanently disabled after the accident and is unable to work now. Admittedly, petitioner has suffered 85% permanent physical impairment with respect to left lower limb. As per the facts, the petitioner was working as a carpenter. Considering that he has suffered above knee amputation of his left leg, it is highly probable that it might be difficult for him to get as much work as he was getting earlier now. Further, his mobility is deeply affected due to the accident. However, considering that a carpenter's work is dependent on his hands, it cannot be said that his functional disability is 100%. Therefore, in these circumstances and facts in totality, it is held that the petitioner has suffered functional disability to the extent of 85%. Accordingly, functional disability of petitioner be assessed at 85%.
47. This Tribunal has already assumed the monthly income of petitioner to be Rs. 40,069/- at the relevant time. As far as the age of petitioner at the time of accident is concerned, as per the petitioner's Aadhar card Ex. PW1/1 and Driving License Ex. PW1/2, his date of birt Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: SINGLA 2025.07.16 16:54:56 +0530 MACT No.744/2021 Mohd. Abdul Vs. Amandeep Singh and ors. Page 27 of 45 h is 02.03.1973. The date of accident is 05.08.2021. Hence, the age of petitioner as on the date of accident was 48 years but less than 49 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 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 '13' is held applicable for calculating the loss of future earnings of petitioner arising out of his above disability.
48. Further, by adopting the principles laid down in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC), the future prospects of the petitioner shall be 25% as he was within the age bracket of 46-50 years at the time of accident. As already discussed in the preceding para, the income of the petitioner has been taken as Rs. 40,069/-. In view of the above, the loss of Income on account of functional disability is calculated as under:
Monthly income Rs. 40,069/-
Annual Income Rs. 40,069/- x 12 =
Rs. 4,80,828/-
Add Future Prospects @25% Rs. 1,20,207/-
Total income Rs. 6,01,035/-
Disability @ 85% Rs. 6,01,035/- x 85%= Rs.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16
16:55:03
+0530
MACT No.744/2021 Mohd. Abdul Vs. Amandeep Singh and ors. Page 28 of 45
5,10,879.75
Loss of Income after multiplier Rs. 5,10,879.75 x 13 = Rs.
(13) 66,41,436.75
49. Thus, keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner as well as the disability suffered by him, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to Rs. 66,41,436.75 (rounded off to Rs. 66,41,437) under the head future loss of income.
Compensation for artificial limb:
50. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs. 15,55,400/- under this head. It is stated that the petitioner would require a prosthetic leg costing Rs. 8,05,400/- and that there shall be an additional recurring cost of Rs. 65,000-70,000/- for its maintenance which shall be payable every 2.5-3 years. In this regard, the petitioner examined PW2 Arun Kumar, Technician, Ideal Artificial Limbs Solution who proved the Quotation for the said Prosthetic Leg (Artificial Limb) as Ex. PW-1/5 (colly.)
51. Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3 has argued that there are other cheaper options available in the market. Further, it is argued that the petitioner did not examine the doctor who proposed the said artificial limb. Hence, it is argued that this quotation cannot be relied upon. However, it is matter of record that no steps were taken by the respondent no.3 that there were other cheaper options available which were aligning with the best interests with the petitioner. Further, merely Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16 16:55:44 +0530 MACT No.744/2021 Mohd. Abdul Vs. Amandeep Singh and ors. Page 29 of 45 because the examining doctor has not been produced in the witness box, that does not by itself mean that the said quotation is false. The concerned official of the said company has proved the quotation. Hence, in the opinion of this Tribunal, the same is sufficient and the petitioner is entitled to the said cost.
52. Further, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon case titled as Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Ms. Seema & Ors. MAC.APP. 132/2024 decided on 23 April, 2024 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, where the Hon'ble High Court was dealing with a similar set of facts. It was observed as:
"11. Insofar as this issue is concerned, it would be apposite to refer to the observations made by the learned Tribunal, which read as under:-
"17. As far as compensation for the purchase and maintenance of prosthetic limb is concerned, petitioner has examined PW-1 Dr. Abhishek Sharma, who proved the treatment record of petitioner vide Ex. PW-1/1 (colly). He deposed that "the case of petitioner Seema was crush amputation right upper limb at arm level, he did re plantation of the amputated right upper limb but it did not work." Petitioner has also examined PW-3 Ms. Neha, Prosthetist and Orthotist, who proved the estimate cost of Endolite Right Above Elbow Myo Electric Hand System with 2 degree of freedom, Electrode, Battery, Battery Holder, charger, Glove and Socket and Service Charges vide Ex. PW-3/B. Though, PW-1 and PW-3 were cross-examined but nothing material has come on record to disbelieve the testimony of these Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16 16:55:49 +0530 MACT No.744/2021 Mohd. Abdul Vs. Amandeep Singh and ors. Page 30 of 45 witnesses as the right hand of the petitioner was amputated and she would be requiring prosthetic limb for her day to day activities. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3/Insurance Company has argued that though PW3 brought the quotation/estimate Ex. PW-3/A but she has not brought any rate list for the different components and PW-3 in her cross-examination has admitted that same treatment and components are available in the market at cheaper rates. However, no rebuttal evidence has been brought on record by the respondents in this regard. As per Ex. PW-3/B, the quotation for Endolite Above Elbow Hand System is of Rs. 3,86,400/-. Further, reliance has been placed upon the judgment in Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain vs Regional Manager, U.P. State Road decided on 9 December, 2022 by the Hon'ble Suprme Court of India wherein it was held as under :-
"As per the current compensation given for the prosthetic limb and its maintenance, it would last the Appellant for only 15 years, even if we were to assume that the limb would not need to be replaced after a few years. The Appellant was only 37 years at the time of the accident, and it would be reasonable to assume that he would live till he is 70 years old if not more. We are of the opinion that the Appellant must be compensated so that he is able to purchase three prosthetic limbs in his lifetime and is able to maintain the same at least till he has reached 70 years of age. For the Prosthetic limbs alone, the Appellant is to be awarded compensation of Rs. 7,80,000 and for maintenance of the same he is to be awarded an Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16 16:56:00 +0530 MACT No.744/2021 Mohd. Abdul Vs. Amandeep Singh and ors. Page 31 of 45 additional Rs. 5,00,000/-".
53. Similar are the facts of present case, accordingly after considering the ratio of above said judgment and of testimony of PW-3, a sum of Rs. 11,59,200/- (3,86,400x3) is awarded to the petitioner towards artificial / prosthetic limb and a lump sum amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for maintenance charges for the above artificial / prosthetic limb are also awarded to the petitioner, which is amounting a total of Rs.16,59,200/-."
54. In the present case, the petitioner was aged 48 years at the time of the accident. In the above mentioned case, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has considered a case where the injured was 37 years of age. Relying upon the same principle that it would be reasonable to assume that the present petitioner would live till he is 70 years old if not more, in the opinion of this Tribunal, he must be compensated so that he is able to purchase two prosthetic limbs in his lifetime and is able to maintain the same at least till he has reached 70 years of age. For the Prosthetic limbs alone, the Appellant is to be awarded compensation of Rs.16,10,800 (Rs 8,05,400/- x 2) and for maintenance of the same he is to be awarded an additional amount of Rs. 7,80,000/-. This amount shall be, however, payable directly to the company and not to the petitioner, on an application filed by him as and when required.
55. 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 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16 16:56:05 MACT No.744/2021 Mohd. Abdul Vs. Amandeep Singh and ors. Page 32 of 45 +0530 being derived in the present case as under:-
NAME OF HEAD AMOUNT (in Rupees) Expenditure on Treatment Nil. Monthly income of injured Rs. 40,069/- Loss of income x 6 months Rs. 2,40,414/- Add future prospects 25%
Loss of future income (income X Rs. 66,41,437 % Earning Capacity X Multiplier) Any other loss/expenditure Nil.
Expense on special diet Rs. 5,000/-
Conveyance charges Rs. 15,000/- Attendant charges Rs. 15,000/-
Mental & Physical Shock & Pain & Rs. 1,00,000+ Rs. 1,00,000/- = Suffering Rs. 2,00,000/-
Loss of amenities Rs. 50,000/- Disfiguration Rs.1,00,000/- Loss of marriage prospects Nil.
Loss of earning, inconvenience, Rs. 50,000/-
hardship, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and unhappiness in
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16
16:56:11
+0530
MACT No.744/2021 Mohd. Abdul Vs. Amandeep Singh and ors. Page 33 of 45
future life etc.
Compensation for artificial limb Rs.16,10,800 + Rs. 7,80,000/- =
Rs.23,90,800/-
Total Rs. 97,07,651/-
56. 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. 12.10.2021 till realization, totalling to the tune of Rs. 1,30,08,252/-.
DISBURSEMENT
57. 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.
58. After considering the financial statement of the petitioner, it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 1,30,08,252/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty Lakhs Eight Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Two only), Rs.23,90,800/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Ninety Thousand Eight Hundred only) shall be released/transferred to Ideal Artificial Limbs Solution, B-24, Second Floor, Opp. Pillar No.09, Lajpat Nagar-II, Delhi-110024 for prosthetic leg of the injured in future, which requires time to time maintenance, on an application filed by the Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: SINGLA 2025.07.16 16:56:16 +0530 MACT No.744/2021 Mohd. Abdul Vs. Amandeep Singh and ors. Page 34 of 45 petitioner, as and when required.
59. Further, out of remaining award amount of Rs. 1,06,17,452/-, Rs.10,17,452,/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Seventeen Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Two only) be released to the petitioner/claimant Mohd. Abdul immediately in his MACAD bank account maintained at State Bank of India, Sector 100, NOIDA bearing no. 44265594335, IFSC no. SBIN0011600, CIF no. 85661433032.
60. The balance amount of Rs.96,00,000/- (Rupees Ninety Six Lakhs only) shall be put in 128 monthly fixed deposits in his name in MACAD account of equal amount of Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 128 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 without the facility of cheque book and ATM card.
61. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to the petitioner only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving account in a bank near his residence with endorsement of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued or if it has been issued the said ATM Card has been withdrawn and shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16
16:56:22
+0530
MACT No.744/2021 Mohd. Abdul Vs. Amandeep Singh and ors. Page 35 of 45
62. The above FDR(s) shall be prepared with the following conditions as enumerated by 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.:
(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 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16 16:56:27 +0530 MACT No.744/2021 Mohd. Abdul Vs. Amandeep Singh and ors. Page 36 of 45 shall debit card(s) freeze the account of claimants so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of claimants from any other branch of the bank.
(vi) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque books and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and the claimant shall produced the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court for compliance.
63. 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: 05.08.2021 Name of the Injured: Mohd. Abdul Age of the Injured: Presently 52 years Occupation of the Injured: Self Employed Income of the Injured: Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- Nature of Injury: Grievous Medical Treatment taken: LNJP Hospital, Delhi. Period of Hospitalization: N.A. Whether any permanent: Yes. disability? Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: SINGLA 2025.07.16 16:56:35 +0530 MACT No.744/2021 Mohd. Abdul Vs. Amandeep Singh and ors. Page 37 of 45 COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION Sr. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal No. 1. Pecuniary Loss: (i) Expenditure on Treatment Nil. (ii) Expenditure on Special Diet Rs. 5,000/- (iii) Expenditure on Rs. 15,000/- Nursing/Attendant charges (iv) Expenditure on Conveyance Rs. 15,000/- (v) Monthly income of injured Rs. 40,069/- (vi) Loss of income x 6 months Rs. 2,40,414/- (vii) Add future prospects 25% viii) Any other loss which may Rs.16,10,800 + Rs. 7,80,000/- = require any special treatment or Rs.23,90,800/- aid to the injured for the rest of his life (Cost of artificial limb and maintenance) 2. Non Pecuniary Loss (i) Compensation for mental and physical shock Rs. 1,00,000+ Rs. 1,00,000/- = (ii) Pain and Sufferings Rs. 2,00,000/- (iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 50,000/- (iv) Disfiguration Rs.1,00,000/- (v) Loss of marriage prospects Nil. (vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, Rs. 50,000/- 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 Date: SINGLA 2025.07.16 16:56:40 +0530 MACT No.744/2021 Mohd. Abdul Vs. Amandeep Singh and ors. Page 38 of 45
(i) Percentage of disability assessed 85% 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 85% capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (income Rs. 66,41,437 x % earning capacity x Multiplier)
4. Total Rs. 97,07,651/-
1(ii+iii+iv+vi)+2(i+ii+vi)
5. Total Compensation Rs. 97,07,651/-
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. 33,00,601/-
award w.e.f. 12.10.2021 till
realization (45 months and 10
days)
8. Total amount including Interest Rs. 1,30,08,252/-
9. Award amount released As mentioned in para nos. 58, 59 & 60
10. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.96,00,000/-
11. Mode of disbursement of the As mentioned in para nos. 58, 59 & 60
award amount of the claimant(s)
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2025.07.16
16:56:51
+0530
MACT No.744/2021 Mohd. Abdul Vs. Amandeep Singh and ors. Page 39 of 45
12. Next date for compliance of the 18.08.2025
award
LIABILITY:
64. 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 and the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no. 3.
65. On the point of liability, Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3/ Insurance Company has submitted that respondent no.1 has violated the terms of the insurance policy as he was not having a valid driving license at the time of the accident and thus, respondent no. 3 is not liable to pay any amount. In this regard, he has relied upon the statement of R3W1 Sh. Pawan Kumar, Junior Assistant, Transport Department, Govt. of UP, who proved that the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent no. 1 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. His authority letter was proved as Ex. R3W1/1 and the report was proved as Ex. R3W1/2.
66. Therefore, it is proved that respondent no.1 did not have a valid driving license at the time of the accident and thus, there is a breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. However, since the present proceedings are beneficial in nature and the insurance policies are for the benefit of the third persons, respondent no. 3 is directed to pay the award amount to the petitioner. Since, it was the duty of the owner also to ensure that the driver possesses a valid driving license, the recovery rights are granted to respondent no. 3 against Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16 16:56:57 +0530 MACT No.744/2021 Mohd. Abdul Vs. Amandeep Singh and ors. Page 40 of 45 respondent nos. 1 and 2, jointly and severally. Issue No. 2 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
RELIEF:
67. The respondent no.3 - The Oriental India Insurance Co Ltd. is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 97,07,651/- (Rupees Ninety Seven lakhs, Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty One only) along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 12.10.2021 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.
68. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurance company for compliance within the time granted 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 Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16
16:57:03
+0530
MACT No.744/2021 Mohd. Abdul Vs. Amandeep Singh and ors. Page 41 of 45
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 18.08.2025 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.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court today on this 16th Day of July, 2025 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16 16:57:09 +0530 (RUCHIKA SINGLA) PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.MACT No.744/2021 Mohd. Abdul Vs. Amandeep Singh and ors. Page 42 of 45
THE PARTICULARS AS PER FORM-XVII, CENTRAL MOTOR VEHICLES (FIFTH AMENDMENT) RULES, 2022 (PL. SEE RULE 150A) ARE AS UNDER:-
1 Date of Accident 05.08.2021 2 Date of filing of Form-I -
First Accident Report 20.09.2021
(FAR)
3 Date of delivery of Form-II
Not attached
to the victim(s)
4 Date of receipt of Form-III
Not attached
from the Driver
5 Date of receipt of Form-IV
from the Owner Not attached
6 Date of filing of Form-V-
Particulars of the insurance Not attached
of the vehicle
7 Date of receipt of Form-
VIA and Form VIB from Not attached
the Victim(s)
8 Date of filing of Form-VII -
06.10.2021
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 02.02.2022
Insurance Company
11 Whether the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company admitted his Yes.
report within 30 days of the
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.07.16
16:57:17 +0530
MACT No.744/2021 Mohd. Abdul Vs. Amandeep Singh and ors. Page 43 of 45
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 16.07.2025
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 12.10.2021
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
16.07.2025
place of their residence
alongwith the endorsement,
PAN card and Aadhar Card?
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.07.16
16:57:23 +0530
MACT No.744/2021 Mohd. Abdul Vs. Amandeep Singh and ors. Page 44 of 45
18 Permanent residential
address of the claimant(s). As per Award.
19 Whether the claimant(s)
savings bank account(s) is
Yes
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 08.07.2025.
ascertain his/their financial condition?
Digitally signed by RUCHIKARUCHIKA SINGLA Date: SINGLA 2025.07.16 16:57:27 +0530 (RUCHIKA SINGLA) PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
16.07.2025 MACT No.744/2021 Mohd. Abdul Vs. Amandeep Singh and ors. Page 45 of 45