Delhi District Court
Danish (I) (Fir 108/2025/Subzi Mandi) vs Munna Bhai (The Oriental Insurance) on 9 April, 2026
IN THE TRIBUNAL OF PRESIDING OFFICER MACT-02:
CENTRAL DISTRICT: TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI.
PRESIDED OVER BY Ms. POOJA AGGARWAL, DHJS
MACT No. 530/2025
UID/CNR No. DLCT-01-009391-2025
In Respect of
FIR No. 108/25
PS Subzi Mandi
U/s: 281/125(b) BNS
Mohammad Danish
S/o Sh. Babu Khan
R/o H. No. 1352, Gali No. 45,
Jafrabad, Delhi-110053
(Through Ld. Counsel Ms. Babita Tyagi)
.....Petitioner
Versus
1. Munna Bhai (Driver)
S/o Mr. Ibhrahim Khan
R/o Gali No.6, Sanjay Nagar,
Udiya Basti, Kota Ladpura, Rajasthan.
2. Dharam Raj (Owner)
S/o Mr. Rameshwar
R/o Vill Lalganj, PO-Indamau,
Distt. Unnao, UP.
3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
Office at:- 60, Janpath Road, Atul Grove Road,
Janpath, Connaught Place,
New Delhi-110001.
Also at:- A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road,
Oriental House, Delhi-110002.
(Through Ld. Counsel Mr. Vinay Chaudhary)
.....Respondents
Digitally signed
by POOJA
MACT No. 530/25 POOJA AGGARWAL
In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi AGGARWAL Date: Page No. 1 of 40
2026.04.09
Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 14:52:14 +0530
DOD: 09.04.2026
Date of filing of DAR : 01.07.2025
Judgment reserved on : 09.04.2026
Date of Award : 09.04.2026
AWARD/JUDGMENT
1. The present Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred to as
"DAR") has been filed by the Investigating Officer in respect of
FIR No. 108/2025, PS Subzi Mandi, u/s 281/125(b) BNS
regarding injuries sustained by Mohammad Danish S/o Mr.
Babu Khan (hereinafter referred to as "petitioner/ injured") due
to an accident, which took place on 10.01.2025, at about 10.30
P.M., near shop no. 13, Gokhale market, behind Tis Hazari
Court Gate No. 06, Mori Gate Gol Chakkar, Delhi, by the
vehicle bearing registration no. BR-29PB-0526 (hereinafter
referred to as 'Offending Vehicle') being driven by Munna Bhai
(hereinafter referred to as "Respondent No.1") rashly and
negligently, owned by Dharam Raj (hereinafter referred to as
"Respondent No.2") and insured with The Oriental Insurance
Company Limited (hereinafter referred to Respondent No.3/
Insurance Company).
2. A copy of the chargesheet in respect of the commission of
offences under Section 281/125(b) BNS filed against the
Respondent No. 1 after investigation in respect of the said FIR,
was also annexed with the DAR.
3. Vide order dated 01.07.2025 passed by the Ld. Predecessor, the
DAR was directed to be treated as a claim petition under Section
MACT No. 530/25
Digitally signed
In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi POOJA
by POOJA
AGGARWAL Page No. 2 of 40
Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.09
14:52:26
DOD: 09.04.2026
+0530
166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "MV
Act").
Facts as per Reply/Written Statement filed by Respondents No.
1 &2
4. In their joint reply/written statement, the Respondents No. 1 and 2 raised various preliminary objections and stated that the alleged accident had occurred solely due to carelessness and negligence on the part of the Petitioner himself, who was not aware of the traffic rules and regulations as he had jumped red light, got disbalanced on his own and hit the vehicle of the Respondents. It has also been stated that the FIR had been registered only to take the benefit of compensation. It has also been asserted that the offending vehicle was insured with Respondent No. 3 at the time of the alleged accident and that the accident and it has been denied that the Respondent No. 1 was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner or caused the accident of the Petitioner.
Facts as per reply of Respondent No.3/ Insurance Company.
5. In its reply, the Respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company inter alia stated that as per the medical record, dated 11.01.2025 of Atal Bihari Vajpayee Institute of Medical Science and Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, the injured/ petitioner was brought to the hospital due to A/H/O fall from bike whereas in FIR dated 28.02.2025, it has been stated by the injured petitioner/that he got injuries due to rash and negligent driving of driver of bus. The Respondent No. 3 admitted having issued the insurance MACT No. 530/25 Digitally signed by POOJA In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
Page No. 3 of 40Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 2026.04.09 14:52:52 +0530 DOD: 09.04.2026 policy for the offending vehicle No. BR-29PB-0526 for the period w.e.f. 31.01.2024 to 30.01.2025 in favour of the Respondent No. 2 Dharam Raj.
Issues
6. On the basis of the pleadings on record, the following issues were framed vide order dated 18.11.2025:-
1. Whether the petitioner Danish suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 10.01.2025 at about 10.30 p.m., involving vehicle bearing registration No. BR-29PB-0526 driven by the 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.
Evidence of the Petitioner
7. PW-1 Mohd. Danish, being the Petitioner/injured himself, tendered his evidence by way of affidavit i.e. Ex. PW-1/A, wherein, inter-alia, he testified that he was working with Vishwa Karma Travels Office and on 10.01.2025, at about 10.30 p.m., he was standing on the footpath (patri) of Vishwa Karma Travels Office, Shop No. 13, Gokhale Market, Behind Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi-110054, when the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. BR-29PB-0526, "negligently and carelessly and without apply safety measures, while driving the offending vehicle reverse side and hit back portion of the bus over the patri where the deponent was standing and two right foot figures (sic) (3&4) came under the said offending vehicle and completely cut at the spot".
MACT No. 530/25 Digitally signed
by POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.09
Page No. 4 of 40
Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 14:53:03
+0530
DOD: 09.04.2026
8. The Petitioner/PW1 has further testified that he was taken to RML Hospital, New Delhi where the employer as well as of the driver of the offending vehicle assured that they will bear all expenses on his medical treatment and will also compensate him, due to which the Petitioner did not lodge any complaint with the Police Station and no MLC was prepared, however, when despite passage of time, the employer and driver of the vehicle did not fulfill the promises, he took treatment from Hindu Rao Hospital, New Delhi, where his MLC No. 1770/2025, dated 28.02.2025 was prepared. The Petitioner further testified that he had sustained grievous injuries i.e. his right foot two fingers (3 & 4) were cut at the spot and he also received injuries on his body. He further testified that he had also taken treatment from Ganga Ram Hospital. He also testified that an FIR No. 108/25, dated 28.02.2025 under Section 281/125(b) BNS, PS Subzi Mandi had also been registered against the Respondents.
9. The Petitioner/PW-1 has further testified that he was aged about 34 years at the time of the accident and was working with Vishwa Karma Travels Office earning a sum of ₹25,000/- per month. He also testified as to having incurred an expenditure of ₹60,000/- on medical treatment, a sum of ₹40,000/- on conveyance, a sum of ₹40,000/- on special diet and a sum of ₹45,000/- towards attendant charges. He also relied upon the following documents:-
MACT No. 530/25 Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: Page No. 5 of 40 2026.04.09 Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 14:53:11 +0530 DOD: 09.04.2026 S.No. Description of Documents Exhibit/Mark
1. DAR Ex. PW-1/1 (Colly)
2. Copy of discharge summary Ex. PW-1/2 (De-exhibited being unavailable on record).
3. Treatment papers Ex.PW-1/3(Colly)
4. Medical bills Ex.PW-1/4(Colly)
5. Copy of his Aadhaar Card Ex. PW1/5
6. Disability Certificate Ex.PW-1/6
7. Copy of educational paper Ex.PW-1/7
10. He was duly cross-examined on behalf of the Respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company only.
Evidence of the Respondents
11.Only the Respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company led its evidence and examined two witnesses.
12. R3W-1/Dr. Vinod Kumar Meena, from RML Hospital, being a summoned witness produced the following summoned record:
S.No. Description of Documents Exhibit/Mark
1. His authority letter Ex.R3W-1/1
2. Causality Card dated Ex.R3W-1/2 10.01.2025 (already Ex.
PW-1/3 (Colly)
3. Plastic Surgery Reference Ex.R3W-1/3 Card, dated 11.01.2025
4. General Surgery Card Ex.R3W-1/4 Reference Sheet
5. OPD Card, dated Ex.R3W-1/5 14.01.2025 MACT No. 530/25 Digitally signed by POOJA In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.09 Page No. 6 of 40 Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 14:53:15 +0530 DOD: 09.04.2026
13. He also testified that "the patient had told Dr. Amisha Singh that the accident had occurred at 11.30 p.m. on 10.01.2025 and fall from bike" and he was duly cross-examined on behalf of the Petitioner.
14. R3W-2 Munna i.e. the Respondent No. 1 himself was also examined by the Respondent No. 3 as a summoned witness. He testified that his bus used to leave at 10.00 P.M. daily from his Office i.e. Shop No. C-13/14, Mori Gate, in front of Tis Hazari Court Gate No. 6 and on 10.01.2025, his bus had left at the same time. He further testified that he had come to know about the accident after two months when police came to his office and inquired from his owner. He further testified to the effect that no accident had been caused by him. He was duly cross-examined on behalf of the Petitioner wherein inter alia he testified that he had never filed any complaint or application to any higher authority regarding his false implication in the accident and also testified that he was appearing on every date before the criminal court. He further testified that he did not tell before the Police or the criminal court that no accident had been caused by him on 10.01.2025.
Final Arguments and Issue Wise Findings
15. Final arguments were advanced only on behalf of the Petitioner as well as on behalf of Respondent No.3/ Insurance Company by their respective Counsels as none appeared on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and 2 to advance the same. The arguments as advanced have been carefully considered along with the Digitally signed MACT No. 530/25 POOJA by POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.09 In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi 14:53:19 +0530 Page No. 7 of 40 Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors.
DOD: 09.04.2026 evidence on record, and after careful consideration of the same, the issue wise findings are as under:
Issue No.1: Whether the petitioner Danish suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 10.01.2025 at about 10.30 p.m., involving vehicle bearing registration No. BR-29PB-0526 driven by the Respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently, owned by the respondent no. 2 and insured with the respondent no. 3? OPP.
16. The onus to prove this issue was upon the Petitioner. It is a settled proposition of law that in this Tribunal strict proof of an accident having been caused in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the Petitioners, and they are to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied. Strength for this interpretation is drawn from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, (2009) 13 SC 530, Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
& Ors., (2018) 5 SCC 656, Geeta Dubey Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors, 2024 SCC Online SC 3779, Sajeena Ikhbal and Others Vs Mini Babu George and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2883.
17. In Prabhavathi v. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corpn., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 455, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has again reiterated that:
"13. It is the settled law that under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 it is established that in compensation cases, the strict rules of evidence used in criminal trials do not apply. Instead, the standard of proof is MACT No. 530/25 Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi Page No. 8 of 40 AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.09 Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 14:53:23 +0530 DOD: 09.04.2026 based on the preponderance of probability. This Court in Sunita v. Rajasthan SRTC1 observed that:
"22. It is thus well settled that in motor accident claim cases, once the foundational fact, namely, the actual occurrence of the accident, has been established, then the Tribunal's role would be to calculate the quantum of just compensation if the accident had taken place by reason of negligence of the driver of a motor vehicle and, while doing so, the Tribunal would not be strictly bound by the pleadings of the parties.
Notably, while deciding cases arising out of motor vehicle accidents, the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases."
The exposition came to be reiterated in Rajwati alias Rajjo v. United India Insurance Company Ltd.2, wherein it was observed that:
"20. It is well settled that Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial piece of legislation and as such, while dealing with compensation cases, once the actual occurrence of the accident has been established, the Tribunal's role would be to award just and fair compensation. As held by this Court in Sunita (Supra) and Kusum Lata(Supra), strict rules of evidence as applicable in a criminal trial, are not applicable in motor accident compensation cases, i.e., to say, "the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases".
(Emphasis supplied)
18. In respect of the factum and manner of the accident, it is noted that as per the testimony of the Petitioner/PW1, the accident occurred on 10.01.2025, at about 10.30 p.m., when the back portion of the bus/offending vehicle bearing No. BR-29PB-0526 had hit the Petitioner resulting in the toes of right foot (3&4) coming under the offending vehicle and being completely cut at the spot. The testimony of PW1 is also categorical in respect of the accident having been caused as the offending vehicle was being driven by its driver/ Respondent No. 1 negligently and 1(2020) 13 SCC 486 2 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1699 MACT No. 530/25 Digitally signed In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi POOJA by POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.09 Page No. 9 of 40 Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 14:53:28 +0530 DOD: 09.04.2026 carelessly. Nothing material could be elicited from the Petitioner during his cross-examination to discredit his testimony in respect of either the factum or even the manner of the accident.
19. On the other hand, as R3W2, the Respondent No. 1/Driver Munna testified that on 10.01.2025, no accident had been caused by him and that his bus had left at 10.00 p.m. from his office on that day. However, except his self serving oral testimony as to the bus/offending vehicle having already left from the place of accident at 10.00 p.m. i.e. prior to the time of accident, the Respondents did not bring on record any further evidence in the form of documents/ logs/ register to corroborate the said self serving oral testimony, which cannot be relied upon as it is contrary to the defence set up in the reply/written statement of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2, i.e. as to the accident having occurred due to carelessness and negligence on the part of the Petitioner himself, who was not aware of the traffic rules and regulations as he had jumped red light, got disbalanced on his own and hit the vehicle of the Respondents.
20. No other evidence has been brought on record by the Respondents to disbelieve the oral testimony of the petitioner which is also consistent with his earlier statement, on the basis of which the FIR was registered, whereas the Respondents have failed to lead sufficient evidence to render their defence more probable than that of the Petitioner.
21. The act of driving a vehicle in such a manner that it results in MACT No. 530/25 POOJA Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.09 14:53:32 +0530 Page No. 10 of 40 Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors.
DOD: 09.04.2026 the vehicle causing injuries to any person, is itself indicative of existence of rashness and negligence by the driver of the offending vehicle, even more so when no evidence has been led as to the Petitioner having contributed in causing the accident in any manner.
22. It is further noted that the Respondent No. 1 has been charge- sheeted by the investigating agency for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 281/125(b) BNS in the FIR No. 108/25, PS Subzi Mandi in respect of accident in question, after concluding its investigation on the aspect of factum and cause of the accident as well as the identity of the offender.
23. The Respondent No. 1/ Driver has admitted during his cross examination that he is appearing before the criminal court on every date, yet he did not tell before the Police or the criminal court that no accident had been caused by him on 10.01.2025. The Respondent No. 1/ driver has also admitted in his cross- examination that he has never filed any complaint or application to any higher authority regarding his false implication in the accident, yet he did not furnish any explanation for not having taken any steps in respect of his purported false implication. Thus, the filing of the chargesheet against the Respondent No. 1/Driver also indicates existence of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by him.
24. Strength for this interpretation is also drawn from the judgment of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 MACT No. 530/25 Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.09 14:53:36 +0530 Page No. 11 of 40 Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors.
DOD: 09.04.2026 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepak Goel & Ors, 2014 (2) TAC 846 (Del) wherein the Coordinate Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, held as under:-
"......where the claimants filed either the certified copies of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of investigation by police or issuance of charge sheet under Section 279/304A IPC or the certified copy of FIR or the recovery of the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, then these documents are sufficient proof to reach to a conclusion that the driver was negligent particularly when there is no defence available from the side of driver."
(Emphasis supplied)
25. It has already been noted that the Petitioner cannot be expected to prove the accident beyond reasonable doubts, and the principle of res ipsa loquitor i.e. "accident speaks for itself" is applicable, it would imply that 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 in this case.
26. Thus, in view of the aforesaid reasons and discussion, on the basis of the evidence as led including the chargesheet, as well as oral testimony of PW-1/ Danish who is an eye-witness of the accident being the injured himself, and in the absence of any evidence depicting any negligent/ sudden act or omission on the part of injured having been brought on record, it is held that on the scale of preponderance of probability, the Petitioner has discharged his burden and has proved that the accident took place on 10.01.2025 at about 10.30 PM involving Bus bearing registration No. BR-29PB-0526 driven by the Respondent No. 1 MACT No. 530/25 Digitally signed by POOJA In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.09 14:53:40 +0530 Page No. 12 of 40 Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors.
DOD: 09.04.2026 rashly and negligently, owned by the Respondent No. 2 and insured with the Respondent No. 3.
Injury
27. In respect of the injury sustained by the Petitioner in the accident, it is noted that as per the testimony of PW1/ Petitioner, he had sustained injuries on his right foot and two toes of his right foot were completely cut after having come under the offending vehicle.
28. The document Ex. R3W1/2, which is an OPD registration card of RML Hospital, dated 10.01.2025, reflects the alleged history of RTA and also reflects injury i.e. laceration (4 x 3 x 1cm) over the dorsum of right foot, while Ex. R3W1/3, dated 11.01.2025 (3.00 a.m.) reflects lacerated wound over the right foot i.e. over dorsum (6 x 2 x 1cm) over 2-4 digit, over base of 2-4 digits (7 x 4 x 2 cm), MTPJ restricted movements=2-5th, CRT absent in 3/4th toes, complete degloving injury of 3/4 toes.
29. Further, treatment documents i.e. Ex. R3W1/4 as well as Ex. R3W1/5 also reflect injuries on the foot of the Petitioner, while the treatment documents i.e. page No. 2 of Ex. PW1/3, reflects that amputation was also done at RML Hospital itself.
30. The said medical documents have not been controverted by the Respondents in any manner nor any reason has been brought on record to disbelieve either the aforesaid medical treatment papers or even the disability certificate issued by Aruna Asaf MACT No. 530/25 Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.09 Page No. 13 of 40 Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 14:53:46 +0530 DOD: 09.04.2026 Ali, Government Hospital, which reflects that the Petitioner was a case of amputation of 3rd-4th toe (right) and he has 11% permanent physical impairment in relation to his right lower limb, which, on the scale of preponderance of probabilities, sufficiently proves that the grievous injuries was sustained by the Petitioner due to the accident, which also led to permanent disability.
31. During the course of final arguments, it has been vehemently argued on behalf of the Respondent No.3/ Insurance Company that there was a delay in the registration of FIR as the accident had purportedly occurred on 10.01.2025 but the FIR was registered only on 28.02.2025, which proved that the offending vehicle was falsely implicated. It has also been argued that in the medical documents produced by R3W1, the alleged history is recorded as fall from bike and not road traffic accident, which further proved that falsity of the case.
32. In respect of these arguments, it is noted that it is a matter of record that the FIR in the present case has been registered only on 28.02.2025, whereas the accident took place on 10.01.2025. However, PW-1/ Danish has categorical testified that his employer as well as the driver of the offending vehicle had assured him that they will bear all the expenses of his treatment and will also compensate him and it was for this reason that he did not lodge any complaint with the police station immediately. The Petitioner was not cross examined by the Respondent No. 3 in respect of such assurances nor the Respondent No. 2 or even MACT No. 530/25 Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.09 Page No. 14 of 40 Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 14:53:52 +0530 DOD: 09.04.2026 the Respondent No. 1 controverted such testimony through any cross-examination, or even during the testimony of Respondent No.1. It is not lost sight of that the Petitioner was an employee of the Respondent No. 2 itself and hence, it is not difficult to believe that he had restrained from filing any police complaint against the driver of his own employer/ employer himself on the basis of such assurance of the employer/driver.
33. That being so, the delay in the registration of FIR has been sufficiently explained and the mere fact that the FIR was registered belatedly does not have disprove the factum of the accident having occurred on 10.01.2025.
34. In respect of the second arguments of the Respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company, it is duly noted that the very first treatment record of the Petitioner as available on record is the document Ex. R3W1/2, which is an OPD registration card of RML Hospital, dated 10.01.2025, does reflect the alleged history of RTA at Mori Gate, Delhi and also reflects injury on the right foot, which thus corroborates the testimony of the Petitioner having sustained injury in a road traffic accident on 10.01.2025.
35. The fact that the subsequent treatment documents i.e. Ex. R3W1/3 and Ex. R3W1/4, reflect the alleged history of fall from bike does not discredit the earlier document i.e. Ex.R3W1/2, which was prepared prior in time and immediately after the accident. It is further noted that even in the subsequent document i.e. Ex. R3W1/5, dated 14.01.2025, the alleged MACT No. 530/25 Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.09 14:53:56 +0530 Page No. 15 of 40 Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors.
DOD: 09.04.2026 history is again recorded as RTA. In these circumstances, the mere mention of history of fall from bike in Ex. R3W1/3 and Ex. R3W1/4 is not sufficient to render the factum of the Petitioner having been injured in the accident itself.
36. Consequently, the arguments raised by the Respondent No.3/ Insurance Company are rejected being devoid of merit, and 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; and Issue no. 3.Relief.
37. Since the Petitioner sustained grievous injuries as a result of the accident in question, he is entitled to be compensated for the same and Section 168 of the MV Act enjoins upon this Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable.
Quantum of compensation
38. The guiding principles for assessment of "just and reasonable compensation" has been enumerated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Anjali v. Lokendra Rathod, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1683, wherein it has been observed that: -
"The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "MV Act") gives paramount importance to the concept of 'just and fair' compensation. It is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims or their families. Section 168 of the MV Act deals with the concept of 'just compensation' which ought to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability. Although such MACT No. 530/25 Digitally signed In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi Page No. 16 of 40 by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.09 Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 14:54:01 +0530 DOD: 09.04.2026 determination can never be arithmetically exact or perfect, an endeavor should be made by the Court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of the amount claimed by the applicant/s. In Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, this Court has laid down as under:
16."Just compensation" is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit."
(Emphasis supplied)
39. It is a settled proposition of law that in cases where the Petitioner has suffered injuries due to the accident, the grant of compensation is under two broad categories, i.e. Pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary damages. The two categories of damages has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 551, which has also been reiterated in Atul Tiwari v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2025) 3 SCC 6 as under:
"9. Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non- pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant:
(I) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life."
(Emphasis supplied) MACT No. 530/25 In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi POOJA Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 17 of 40 Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.09 14:54:09 +0530 DOD: 09.04.2026
40. The principles guiding such grant of compensation have been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 34, as under:
"General principles relating to compensation in injury cases
5. The provision of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`Act' for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The Court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376, R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby
- 1970 AC 467).
6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following :
Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life."
(Emphasis supplied)
Digitally signed
by POOJA
MACT No. 530/25 POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi 2026.04.09
14:54:14 +0530 Page No. 18 of 40
Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors.
DOD: 09.04.2026
41. Further in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413, it has been held that:
"It is impossible to equate human suffering and personal deprivation with money. However, this is what the Act enjoins upon the courts to do. The court has to make a judicious attempt to award damages, so as to compensate the claimant for the loss suffered by the victim. On the one hand, the compensation should not be assessed very conservatively, but on the other hand, compensation should also not be assessed in so liberal a fashion so as to make it a bounty to the claimant. The court while assessing the compensation should have regard to the degree of deprivation and the loss caused by such deprivation. Such compensation is what is termed as just compensation. The compensation or damages assessed for personal injuries should be substantial to compensate the injured for the deprivation suffered by the injured throughout his/her life. They should not be just token damages."
(Emphasis supplied)
42. In view of the above legal propositions, the amount of compensation shall be computed in this case.
A: Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
43. In respect of his treatment/ medicine and hospitalization, the Petitioner has relied upon his treatment bills i.e. Ex PW-1/4(Colly), as per which he has incurred an expense of ₹12,555/-. For reasons best known to them, the Respondents could not controvert the aforesaid bills either through cross examination or through any other evidence. In the absence of the same, no reason has been brought on record to disbelieve the said bills issued in the name of the Petitioner, and thus, the Petitioner is awarded a sum of ₹12,555/-) towards treatment bills.
Digitally signed by POOJA MACT No. 530/25 POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi 2026.04.09 Page No. 19 of 40
14:54:18 +0530
Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors.
DOD: 09.04.2026
44. In respect of expenses towards nourishing food and conveyance, the Petitioner has testified in Ex PW-1/A that he had incurred an expense of about ₹40,000/- on special diet, and a sum of ₹40,000/- on conveyance, but he led no further evidence to prove the same. Be that as it may, though he has not brought on record any document to substantiate his claim of the expenses, but at the same time, it is not overlooked that in view of the injuries sustained by the Petitioner resulting in 11% disability in relation to his right lower limb, he would have taken some time for recovery and incurred extra expenditure on his food and conveyance. That being so, a sum of ₹15,000/- each is awarded to the Petitioner under the head of special diet as well as conveyance.
45. In respect of the misc expenses, PW1/Petitioner has testified as to having incurred an expense of ₹45,000/- towards charges paid to the attendant, but he led no further evidence to prove the same as he neither examined any such attendant nor proved any such payment towards the same. Be that as it may, it can also not be overlooked that in view that the injuries sustained by the Petitioner in the accident, he is likely to have incurred misc expenses including expense towards attendant. That being so, a sum of ₹15,000/- is awarded to the Petitioner under the head of Misc Expenses (Attendant Charges).
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.MACT No. 530/25 Digitally signed by POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.09 Page No. 20 of 40 Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 14:54:23 +0530 DOD: 09.04.2026
46. In respect of loss of earning during the period of treatment , it is noted that as per the medical documents on record i.e. Ex PW-1/3 (colly) as well as Ex. R3W1/2 to Ex. R3W1/5, the Petitioner remained under treatment since 10.01.2025 till 20.03.2025. In view of the nature of his injuries which resulted in amputation, the Petitioner is bound to have suffered loss of income for the period he remained under treatment. Hence, he is entitled to be compensated for the loss of his income for the aforementioned period of about 02 months.
47. To compute the loss of income of the Petitioner, the quantum of his monthly income needs to be ascertained. It is noted that as PW1, the Petitioner has testified in Ex PW-1/A that he was working with Vishwa Karma Travels Office and earning about ₹25,000/- per month. However, the Petitioner did not bring on record any document to corroborate his self serving testimony nor he examined his employer, to prove his income. However, he has placed on record his educational documents Ex. PW1/7 i.e. his certificate of Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation in respect of Secondary School Examination (Session 2009- 2011), as per which he has passed Class 10 th. In the absence of sufficient evidence having been brought on record by the Petitioner in respect of him working in private sector or as to him earning ₹25,000/- per month therefrom, his income shall be assessed on the basis of the Minimum Wages payable to a Matriculate Person in Delhi at the time of the accident i.e. on 10.01.2025 i.e. ₹21,917/- per month and consequently, his loss of income is computed to be ₹43,834/- (₹21,917 x 2). Hence, Digitally signed MACT No. 530/25 POOJA by POOJA AGGARWAL In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.09 14:54:29 +0530 Page No. 21 of 40 Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors.
DOD: 09.04.2026 the Petitioner is awarded a sum of ₹43,834/- towards loss of income due to treatment.
48. In respect of the loss of future earnings, the Petitioner has testified in Ex PW-1/A that due to the permanent disability sustained due to the accident, he is unable to move frequently. His disability certificate issued by Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital dated 09.10.2025, is already on record, as per which he has 11% permanent physical impairment in relation to his right lower limb and it can be duly looked into, as no reason has been brought on record to believe that there is any suspicion on the document, and even the Respondent have not disputed the same. Strength for this interpretation is drawn from the order dated 16.11.2021, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, in W.P. (Civil) No. 534/2020, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that:
"(iv) As far as the aspect of the issuance of certificate on disability of victims is concerned, it is reiterated that the guidelines laid down by this Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343 mandatorily must be followed by the MACTs, in respect of loss of income due to injury/disablement. The District Medical Board is also directed to follow the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India vide Gazette Notification S. No. 61, dated 05.01.2018, for issuance of disability Certificate in order to bring Pan India uniformity. The consequence is that the MACT would ascertain that permanent disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board or body authorized by it is in accordance with the Gazette Notification alone. Once the certificate is issued in this manner, the same can be marked for purposes of being taken into consideration as evidence without the necessity of summoning the concerned witness to give formal proof of the documents unless there is some reason for suspicion on the document."
(Emphasis supplied) Digitally MACT No. 530/25 signed by POOJA In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
Page No. 22 of 40Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 2026.04.09 14:55:42 DOD: 09.04.2026 +0530
49. In Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 34, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has noted that:
"Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a human-being. Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor accidents injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995(`Disabilities Act' for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming compensation.
(Emphasis supplied)
50. It is has been further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors., (2011) 1 SCC 34 that:
"9. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the Doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 40% of all his four limbs, it is not the same as 40% permanent disability with reference to the whole body. The extent of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of a percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole body. If there is 60% permanent disability of the right hand and 80% permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent of permanent disability with reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the body have suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof Digitally signed by POOJA MACT No. 530/25 POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi 2026.04.09 14:55:48 Page No. 23 of 40 Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors.
+0530 DOD: 09.04.2026 expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to the whole body, cannot obviously exceed 100%.
10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation.
11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanently disability on the earning capacity of the injured;
and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation (see for example, the decisions of this court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 and Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567).
12. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence:
(i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary;
(ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement,
(iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is the permanent disability suffered by the person.
If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining Digitally signed MACT No. 530/25 POOJA by POOJA AGGARWAL In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi AGGARWAL Date: Page No. 24 of 40 2026.04.09 Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 14:55:52 +0530 DOD: 09.04.2026 the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity.
13.Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent ability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood."
(Emphasis supplied)
51. In the present case, the 11% permanent physical impairment reflected in the disability certificate is in relation to the right lower limb, and not with reference to the whole body, and the Petitioner has failed to bring on record any specific evidence to prove the functional disability sustained by him. In these circumstances, keeping in view the nature of the injuries sustained by the Petitioner, his functional disability is taken to half of 11% i.e. 5.5% in relation to the whole body.
52. In respect of the quantum of loss of future income on account of permanent disability, the age of the Petitioner needs to be ascertained. It is duly noted that the date of birth of the Petitioner is reflected as 31.07.1991 in his Aadhaar Card tendered as Ex.PW-1/5 where as on his educational certificate MACT No. 530/25 Digitally signed by POOJA In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
Page No. 25 of 40Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 2026.04.09 14:55:57 +0530 DOD: 09.04.2026 Ex.PW-1/7, his date of birth is reflected as 08.07.1992. The date of birth as reflected in the educational certificate is more likely to be based on verified record submitted at the time of enrollment in the School whereas the Aadhaar Card cannot be considered as a valid proof of date of birth, in cases where there is a discrepancy in the dates reflected in the educational documents as well as in the Aadhaar Card. Thus, the date of birth of Petitioner shall be considered as per his educational certificate Ex.PW-1/7 and thus his age as on the date of accident comes to be 32 years which shall be considered for the purpose of computation.
53. His notional income has already been assessed to be ₹21,917/- per month on the basis of the minimum wages payable to a Matriculate Person at the time of the accident i.e. on 10.01.2025. In view of the proposition laid down in Erudhaya Priya v. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 601 (citing Jagdish v. Mohan, (2018) 4 SCC 571), the Petitioner is also entitled to the grant of future prospects. Thus, in view of the judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, 40% of the established income is to be added to the monthly income towards future prospects, if the injured is aged less than 40 years. That being so, an amount of ₹8,766.8./- shall be added to the notional monthly income, and thus the monthly income inclusive of the future prospects comes to be ₹30,683.8/- and the annual income comes to be ₹3,68,205.6/-.
MACT No. 530/25 Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.09 Page No. 26 of 40 Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 14:56:02 +0530 DOD: 09.04.2026
54. Further, as the Petitioner was aged about 32 years at the time of the accident, a multiplier of 16 shall be applicable (Ref: Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121) and therefore, the notional income of the Petitioner/ injured comes to be ₹58,91,289.6/- (₹3,68,205.6/- x 16).
55. As the functional disability of the Petitioner has been taken to 5.5%, the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability caused to the Petitioner arising out of the accident comes to be ₹3,24,021/- (rounded off from ₹3,24,020.928/-) (i.e.5.5% of the notional income) and the Petitioner/injured is awarded the same.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
56. The Petitioner has not led any evidence as to any foreseeable medical expenses arising in the future due to the injury sustained by him in the accident. Hence, no amount is awarded to him under this head.
B. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
57. In respect of the damages under this head, it is noted that the factum of the petitioner/injured having sustained grievous injuries with 11% permanent disability in his right lower limb already stands proved. Further, as per the treatment documents placed on record by the Petitioner, he remained under treatment since 10.01.2025 to 20.03.2025. Due to the nature of injuries MACT No. 530/25 Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi POOJA AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.09 Page No. 27 of 40 Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 14:56:06 +0530 DOD: 09.04.2026 and considering the age of the Petitioner/injured at the time of the accident, it can safely be inferred that he must have suffered pain and trauma due to the accident. Accordingly, a lump sum amount of ₹35,000/- is granted in favour of the Petitioner towards damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage, disfiguration).
58. In the present case, as the Petitioner has sustained grievous injury in the accident resulting in 11% disability in relation to his right lower limb, it cannot be ignored that he faces a possibility of denial of enjoyment of the simple pleasures of life and companionship as well as enjoyment of life. That being so, a sum of ₹25,000/- is awarded to the Petitioner/ injured towards loss of amenities.
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
59. No evidence has been brought on record by the Petitioner to show as to whether there is any loss of expectation of life due to the injuries sustained by the Petitioner in the accident. That being so, no amount is awarded to the Petitioner under this head.
60. For the sake of convenience, the amount as awarded to the Petitioner is summarized as under:-
S. No. HEAD AMOUNT
1. Treatment / medicine expenses ₹12,555/-
2. Hospitalization expenses
3. Special Diet ₹15,000/-
MACT No. 530/25 Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: Page No. 28 of 40
Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 2026.04.09
14:56:10 +0530
DOD: 09.04.2026
4. Misc expenses/Attendant ₹15,000/-
charges
5. Transport/conveyance ₹15,000/-
6. Loss of earning during ₹43,834/-
hospitalization
7. Loss of future earnings on ₹3,24,021/-
account of permanent (rounded off)
disability
8. Future medical expenses N.A.
9. Damages for pain, suffering ₹35,000/- and trauma as a consequence of the injuries
10. Loss of amenities and loss of ₹25,000/- marriage prospects
11. Loss of expectation of life NIL TOTAL ₹4,85,410/-
61. In respect of entitlement of the Petitioner to interest on the awarded amount, it is duly noted that in the present matter is pending since 01.07.2025 and the rate of interest of fixed deposits in Nationalized banks has fluctuated several times during the pendency of the present proceedings. Thus, in the interest of justice and keeping in view the principles discussed in order dated 21.04.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Baby Raksha & Ors, MAC APP. No. 36/2023, the Petitioner is awarded interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of DAR till the date of the award i.e. ₹28,113/- (rounded off). The amount of interim award, if any, be deducted from the above amount, if the same has already been paid to the Petitioner.
Digitally signedMACT No. 530/25 POOJA by POOJA AGGARWAL In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.09 Page No. 29 of 40 Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 14:56:14 +0530 DOD: 09.04.2026 Liability
62. As already stated above, Respondent No.1 being the driver and principal tortfeasor; and Respondent No.2 being owner of the offending vehicle being vicariously liable for the acts of Respondent No.1, are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to Petitioner. However, since the offending vehicle was insured with Respondent No.3 at the time of accident and the Respondent No.3 / Insurance Company has not raised any statutory defence in denial of their liability, hence, the Respondent No.3 shall be liable to pay the compensation amount to the Petitioner. Issue No. 2 and 3 are decided accordingly.
Disbursement/ Release
63. As per the Financial Statement of Petitioner recorded in this case, his monthly family expenses are approximately ₹15,000/- to ₹20,000/- per month. Hence, while deciding the quantum and manner of disbursement of the awarded amount, the following directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide orders dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 titled Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors. have to be borne in mind:
"(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name to be added in the saving account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimants i.e. saving bank accounts of the claimants shall be an individual saving bank account and not a joint account.
(ii) Original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited by the ECS in MACT No. 530/25 Digitally signed by POOJA In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.09 Page No. 30 of 40 Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 14:56:19 +0530 DOD: 09.04.2026 the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without the permission of the court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimants. However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of claimants so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of claimants from any other branch of the bank.
(vi) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque books and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and the claimant shall produced the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court for compliance."
(Emphasis Supplied)
64. Thereafter, in Parminder Singh vs Honey Goyal, S.L.P. (C) No. 4484 OF 2020 as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 18 March, 2025 it has been further directed that:
"17. The case in hand pertains to the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. The general practice followed by the insurance companies, where the compensation is not disputed, is to deposit the same before the Tribunal. Instead of following that process, a direction can always be issued to transfer the amount into the bank account(s) of the claimant(s) with intimation to the Tribunal.
17.1 For that purpose, the Tribunals at the initial stage of pleadings or at the stage of leading evidence may require the claimant(s) to furnish their bank account particulars to the Tribunal along with the requisite proof, so that at the stage of passing of the award the Tribunal may direct that the amount of compensation be transferred in the account of the claimant and if there are more than one then in their respective accounts. If there is no bank account, then they should be required to open the bank account either individually or jointly with family members only. It should also be mandated that, in case there is any change in the bank account particulars of the claimant(s) during the pendency of the claim petition they should update the same before the Tribunal. This should be ensured before passing of the final award. It may be ensured that the bank account should be in the name of the claimant(s) and if minor, through guardian(s) and in no case it should be a joint account with any MACT No. 530/25 Digitally signed by POOJA In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:Page No. 31 of 40
Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 2026.04.09 14:56:23 +0530 DOD: 09.04.2026 person, who is not a family member. The transfer of the amount in the bank account, particulars of which have been furnished by the claimant(s), as mentioned in the award, shall be treated as satisfaction of the award. Intimation of compliance should be furnished to the Tribunal."
(Emphasis supplied)
65. In view of the same, the award amount can now be disbursed in the Savings Bank Account of the Petitioner. However, the remaining directions as passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court shall be complied with.
66. In view of the aforesaid directions, in respect of the disbursement of the awarded amount, it is directed that upon realization of the awarded amount of ₹5,13,523/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Thirteen Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty Three Only) inclusive of interest (rounded off), a sum of ₹93,523/- (Rupees Ninety Three Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty Three Only)(inclusive of the medical expenses) shall be released to the Petitioner immediately in his Bank Account No 44978107637, IFSC Code SBIN0000726 with State Bank Of India, Tis Hazari Court Branch, Delhi as furnished by him at the time of recording of his financial statement.
67. The balance amount of ₹4,20,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty Thousand Only) shall be put in 21 monthly fixed deposits in his name in his account as mentioned above of equal amount of ₹20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 21 months respectively, with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. MACT No. 530/25 Digitally signed by POOJA In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 32 of 40 AGGARWAL Date:
Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 2026.04.09 14:56:27 +0530 DOD: 09.04.2026 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 the nationalized bank situated near the place of his residence.
68. The Respondent No.3 / The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd is directed to deposit the awarded sum of ₹5,13,523/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Thirteen Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty Three Only) inclusive of interest within 30 days by way of NEFT or RTGS mode directly in the MACT account of the Petitioner as mentioned in the Para No. 66 of this award under intimation to the Petitioners as well as this Tribunal failing which the said Respondent shall be liable to pay interest @ 12 % per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days. (Ref: Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @ Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.).
69. The concerned Manager is directed to keep the deposited amount in an interest bearing FD till the time that the Petitioner furnishes his bank account details, whereafter, the amount with accrued interest be released to the Petitioner as per the award upon completion of necessary formalities as per the rules, under intimation to the Tribunal. The concerned Bank Manager of the bank of the Petitioner is also directed to keep the amount in fixed deposits as per the directions given in the award and to send a compliance report to this court. He/ She is also directed to ensure that no loan, advance or pre mature discharge is allowed on the fixed deposit without an order of this court.
Digitally signed MACT No. 530/25 by POOJA
AGGARWAL
POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.09 14:56:34 Page No. 33 of 40 Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. +0530 DOD: 09.04.2026
70. The Petitioner is directed to serve a copy of the Award upon the Manager of his bank for compliance, and file the receiving thereof in the Tribunal.
71. The summary of the award as per Form XVI of the Annexure XIII and particulars of compliance of the Provisions of the Scheme as per Form XVII of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 as amended by the Central Motor Vehicles (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022, are also annexed with this Award as Annexure A and B respectively, and shall form a part of this award.
72. A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of cost.
73. Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)].
74. Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 06.01.2021 in MAC APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., regarding digitization of the records.
75. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award MACT No. 530/25 Digitally signed by POOJA In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
Page No. 34 of 40Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 2026.04.09 14:56:40 +0530 DOD: 09.04.2026 to the insurer as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021 and also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
76. 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).
77. This file be consigned to the Record Room after necessary compliance.
78. A separate file be prepared for compliance report and put up the same on 11.05.2026.
Announced in the Open Court Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA
today i.e. on 9th April 2026 AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL
Date: 2026.04.09
14:56:45 +0530
(POOJA AGGARWAL)
Presiding Officer, MACT-02 (Central) Tis Hazari, Delhi(K) MACT No. 530/25 Digitally signed In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi POOJA by POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 35 of 40 Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.09 14:56:49 +0530 DOD: 09.04.2026 ANNEXURE A FORM - XVI, Central Motor Vehicles (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (part of Annexure XIII. Ref: Rule 150A) SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident : 10.01.2025
2. Name of the injured : Mohammad Danish
3. Age of the injured : 32 years
4. Occupation of the injured : Private Sector
5. Income of the injured : Assessed on the basis of Minimum Wages of a Matriculate Worker prevailing in Delhi at the relevant time.
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured : As per record
8. Period of hospitalisation :N.A
9. Whether any permanent disability?
If yes, give details : Yes, permanent physical disability of 11% in relation to right lower limb
10. Computation of Compensation S.No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on treatment ₹12,555/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance ₹15,000/-
MACT No. 530/25 Digitally signed
by POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: Page No. 36 of 40
Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 2026.04.09
14:56:53 +0530
DOD: 09.04.2026
(iii) Expenditure on special diet ₹15,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant/ ₹15,000/-
misc expenses
(v) Cost of artificial limb --
(vi) Loss of earning capacity --
(vii) Loss of income ₹43,834/-
(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 and ₹35,000/-
physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering
(iii) Loss of amenities of life ₹25,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration
(v) Loss of marriage prospects
(vi) Loss of earning, --
inconvenience, hardships,
disappointment, frustration,
mental stress, dejectment and
unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability Permanent physical assessed and nature of disability of 11% in disability as permanent or relation to right temporary lower limb
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of --
expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning 5.5% capacity in relation to MACT No. 530/25 In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi Digitally signed by POOJA Page No. 37 of 40 Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
DOD: 09.04.2026 2026.04.09
14:56:58
+0530
disability
(iv) Loss of future Income - ₹3,42,021/-
(Income × % Earning (rounded off)
Capacity = Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION ₹4,85,410/-
(rounded off)
15. INTEREST AWARDED 7.5% p.a.
16. Interest amount up to the date ₹28,113/-
of award (rounded off)
17. Total amount including ₹5,13,523/-
interest (rounded off)
18. Award amount released ₹93,523/-
19. Award amount kept in FDRs ₹4,20,000/-
20. Mode of disbursement of the Mentioned in the
award amount to the award
claimant(s)
21. Next date for compliance of 11.05.2026
the award
1. Prepared as per award dated 09.04.2026.
2. A separate file was ordered to be prepared by the Nazir with directions to put up the same on 11.05.2026.
Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.09
14:58:36 +0530
(POOJA AGGARWAL)
Presiding Officer, MACT-02 (Central) Tis Hazari, Delhi 09.04.2026(K) Digitally signed by MACT No. 530/25 POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi AGGARWAL Date: Page No. 38 of 40 2026.04.09 Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 14:58:40 +0530 DOD: 09.04.2026 ANNEXURE B FORM - XVII, Central Motor Vehicles (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (part of Annexure XIII. Ref: Rule 150A) Compliance of provisions of Scheme to be mentioned in the Award
1. Date of the accident 10.01.2025
2. Date of filing of Form-I - First Accident 05.03.2025 Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the N.A. victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the N.A. Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the N.A. Owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V-Interim N.A. Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form- N.A. VIB from the Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - Detailed 01.07.2025 Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Yes.
Investigating Officer? If so, whether No any action/ direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Designated Not mentioned Officer by the Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated Officer of the No Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or Yes.
deficiency on the part of the Designated No officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
MACT No. 530/25 POOJA
Digitally signed
by POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.09 Page No. 39 of 40
Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 14:58:45 +0530
DOD: 09.04.2026
13. Date of response of the petitioner(s) to N.A.
the offer of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the award 09.04.2026
15. Whether the petitioner (s) was/were Yes
directed to open savings bank
account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which claimant(s) 01.07.2025 was/were directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook.
17. Date on which the claimant(s) produced 24.03.2026 the passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of the H. No. 1352, Gali Claimant(s). No. 45, Jafrabad, Delhi-110053
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank No account(s) is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were examined Yes at the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.09
14:58:51 +0530
(POOJA AGGARWAL)
Presiding Officer, MACT-02 (Central) Tis Hazari, Delhi 09.04.2026(K) Digitally signed MACT No. 530/25 by POOJA AGGARWAL In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi POOJA Page No. 40 of 40 AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.09 Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 14:58:55 +0530 DOD: 09.04.2026