Delhi District Court
Vijay Shanker Yadav (Dar)(Fir No ... vs Ankit Kumar on 16 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANJANI MAHAJAN, PRESIDING
OFFICER : MACT : SOUTH DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS :
NEW DELHI
AWARD/JUDGMENT
MACT No. : 138/2024
CNR No. DLST01-002443-2024
1. Sh. Vijay Shankar Yadav,
S/o Sh. Navratan Singh,
R/o H. No. 84, F-3, Gali No. 1,
Sangam Vihar, New Delhi.
...Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Ankit Kumar,
S/o Sh. Ram Chander Mishtri,
R/o H. No. 16, 1047/21A, Ratiya Marg,
Sangam Vihar, Near Gurudwara Chowk.
New Delhi
...Driver cum Owner
2. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Office at 3rd Floor, DLF Plot No. 35,
Shivaji Marg, Block A, Kirti Nagar Industrial Area,
New Delhi 110015.
...Insurance Company
...Respondents
Date of Institution : 19.03.2024
Date of reserving of judgment/order : 30.01.2026
Date of pronouncement : 16.02.2026
Sh. Vijay Shankar Yadav Vs Sh. Ankit Kumar & Anr
MACT No. 138/2024 Page No.1 of 24
FORM-XVII
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE
1. Date of the accident 07.09.2022
2. Date of filing of Form-I - FAR filed but date not
First Accident Report (FAR) mentioned
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to 19.03.2024
the victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III Not Mentioned
from the Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV Not Mentioned
from the Owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- 19.03.2024
Interim Accident Report
(IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA Not Mentioned
and Form-VIB from the
Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII-
Detailed Accident Report 19.03.2024
(DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay
or deficiency on the part of NA
the Investigating Officer? If
so, whether any action/
direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the 14.04.2024 (as mentioned in
Designated Officer by the Form XI)
Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated
Officer of the Insurance Not mentioned
Company submitted his report
within 30 days of the
petition/DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay
or deficiency on the part of NA
Sh. Vijay Shankar Yadav Vs Sh. Ankit Kumar & Anr
MACT No. 138/2024 Page No.2 of 24
the Designated Officer of the
Insurance Company? If so,
whether any action/direction
warranted?
13. Date of response of the No legal offer was filed.
petitioner(s) to the offer of the
Insurance Company
14. Date of the award 16.02.2026
15. Whether the petitioner(s)
was/were directed to open NA
savings bank account(s) near
their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which Vide order dated
petitioner(s) was/were 19.03.2024, petitioner was
directed to open savings bank directed to produce his
account(s) near his place of passbook on the next date of
residence and produce PAN hearing for appropriate
Card and Aadhaar Card and endorsement to be made.
the direction to the bank not
issue any cheque book/debit
card to the petitioner(s) and
make an endorsement to this
effect on the passbook.
17. Date on which the Vide order dated
petitioner(s) produced the 23.01.2026, the petitioner
passbook of their savings produced the passbook of
bank account near the place his saving bank account near
of their residence along-with his place of residence
the endorsement, PAN Card without endorsement.
and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential R/o H. No. 84, F-3, Gali No.
Address of the petitioner(s). 1, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi
19. Whether the petitioner(s)
savings bank account(s) is/are Yes
near his/her/their place of
residence?
20. Whether the petitioner(s)
was/were examined at the Yes
time of passing of the award
Sh. Vijay Shankar Yadav Vs Sh. Ankit Kumar & Anr
MACT No. 138/2024 Page No.3 of 24
to ascertain his/her/their
financial condition?
JUDGMENT
(1) Vide this judgment/award, I shall decide the Detailed Accident Report (DAR) which was treated as a claim petition U/s 166 of The Motors Vehicles Act 1988 (MV Act in short) filed for compensation on account of injuries sustained by the injured/petitioner Sh. Vijay Shankar in a road vehicular accident which took place on 07.09.2022.
Case Set up in the DAR (2) In the DAR, in column 31 pertaining to the detailed description of the accident, it is mentioned final report attached. The charge-sheet averments thus are to be considered for the purpose of culling out the relevant facts. (3) Succinctly stated, the GD No. 119A dated 07.09.2022 regarding accident having occurred near SDM Office MB Road was received in the Police Station Neb Sarai. Pursuant thereto the Investigating Officer (IO) SI Aman Kumar alongwith Head Constable (HC) Anand Punia proceeded to the spot of occurrence where neither the injured nor any eye witness nor the accidental vehicle were found. Upon enquiry it was revealed that a motorcyclist had hit a pedestrian and both persons had sustained injuries and an unknown person had taken them to the hospital.
(4) Thereafter, information vide GD No. 16 A dated 08.09.2022 at about 2.30 AM was received regarding medico legal case reports (MLCs) of the injured persons Ankit Kumar (respondent no. 1) and Vijay Shankar Yadav (petitioner).
Sh. Vijay Shankar Yadav Vs Sh. Ankit Kumar & Anr MACT No. 138/2024 Page No.4 of 24 Pursuant thereto, the IO proceeded to the hospital and obtained the MLCs of both the persons. Neither person was in a condition to give the statement. The IO again went to the hospital on 08.09.2022 in the evening where he came to know that the petitioner had been discharged after treatment while the respondent Ankit Kumar was still not fit for statement. The IO attempted to contact the injured but was unable to do so. As per instructions of the Station House Officer, the IO proceeded to carry out investigation under Sections 279/337 IPC. (5) During the course of investigation, the statement of the petitioner was recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. wherein the petitioner informed that on 07.09.2022, at about 9 pm he alongwith his friend Pramod were traveling to their house by motorcycle. When they reached the service lane, SDM Office Saket, the petitioner asked Sh. Pramod to stop the motorcycle as he wanted to go to the toilet. When the petitioner was crossing the service lane to reach the motorcycle after attending to nature's call, one motorcyclist coming from Mehrauli side at a high speed hit against the petitioner on his left side due to which both the petitioner and the motorcyclist fell down and the motorcyclist was not wearing any helmet. Thereafter Sh. Pramod took the petitioner for treatment to the hospital. The final report and DAR came to be filed upon conclusion of the investigation. (6) The petitioner has filed written submissions in the prescribed format wherein he has claimed an amount of Rs.5,16,254/- alongwith interest towards compensation.
Miscellaneous Proceedings (7) Both the respondents i.e. respondent no. 1 Ankit Sh. Vijay Shankar Yadav Vs Sh. Ankit Kumar & Anr MACT No. 138/2024 Page No.5 of 24 Kumar (driver cum owner) and respondent no. 2 TATA AIG General Insurance Company entered appearance on the date of filing of the DAR i.e. 19.03.2024.
(8) Reply /Form 11 was filed on behalf of the insurance company. The respondent no. 1 did not file his reply. Vide order dated 25.09.2024, the respondent no. 1 was proceeded ex-parte. (9) It is pertinent to note that at the stage of final arguments, the respondent no. 1 driver cum owner put in appearance through counsel however, no application for setting aside the ex-parte order was ever filed by the respondent no. 1.
Stand of the Respondent No. 2 Insurance Company (10) In the reply to the DAR filed by the respondent no. 2 insurance company, the details of the insurance policy were provided, it was mentioned that insurance policy no. 32047345100000 was issued qua the vehicle bearing no. BR 21Z 8628 (the offending vehicle) and the insured was the respondent no. 1. It was thus admitted that the offending vehicle was insured at the relevant time with the respondent no. 2 insurance company. (11) It was contended by the respondent insurance company that the driver of the offending vehicle was not issued a driving license and hence the driver's clause of the policy was violated. It was averred that Section 3/181 of the MV Act had been invoked by the Investigating Agency therefore, the vehicle was being used in contravention of the policy terms and conditions and thus the DAR was liable to be dismissed against the respondent insurance company.
Framing of Issues (12) After completion of the pleadings on 02.12.2024, Sh. Vijay Shankar Yadav Vs Sh. Ankit Kumar & Anr MACT No. 138/2024 Page No.6 of 24 the following issues were framed in the present case -
(i) Whether Vijay Shankar Yadav sustained injuries in the road accident on 07.09.2022 at around 09.00 PM near SDM Office, New Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of M/cycle bearing no. BR 21Z 8628 being driven & owned by respondent no.1 (Driver-cum-owner) and insured with respondent no. 3 (sic
2) (Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd.) ? OPP
(ii) To what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled and from whom ? OPP
(iii) Relief.
(13) The matter was then listed for Petitioner's Evidence before the Ld. Local Commissioner (LC).
Evidence Adduced in the Case (14) The petitioner examined himself as Petitioner Witness No. 1 (PW-1). PW-1 tendered his affidavit of evidence as PW1/A and relied upon the following documents -
(a) Copy of Aadhar card - Ex.PW1/1 Original Seen and Returned (OSR).
(b) Documents of DAR - Ex.PW1/2.
(c) Medical Bills - Ex.PW1/3.
(15) The petitioner/PW1 was duly cross examined by Ld.
counsel for the respondent no. 2 insurance company. (16) No other witness was examined on behalf of the petitioner.
(17) The respondent insurance company examined R2W1 Sh. Daksh Arora, Legal Manager of the Insurance Company who exhibited his affidavit of evidence as Ex.R2W1/A and relied on the following documents -
Sh. Vijay Shankar Yadav Vs Sh. Ankit Kumar & Anr MACT No. 138/2024 Page No.7 of 24
(a) Copy of Insurance Policy - Ex.R2W1/1.
(b) Copies of legal notice and postal receipts -
Ex.R2W1/2 and Ex.R2W1/3.
(18) The petitioner did not choose to cross examine R2W1 Sh. Daksh Arora as noted in the testimony dated 31.10.2025 and the report of the Ld. LC dated 03.11.2025. No other witness was examined by the respondent no. 2.
Final Arguments (19) Thereafter final arguments were advanced by Learned (Ld.) counsel for the petitioner, insurance company as well as the driver cum owner of the alleged offending vehicle. The financial statement of the petitioner was also recorded. (20) The written submissions were filed on behalf of the petitioner and respondent no. 2 insurance company. (21) I have heard the arguments addressed by Ld. counsel for the parties and perused the record including the written submissions filed.
Issue Wise Analysis & Findings Issue no. 1 Whether Vijay Shankar Yadav sustained injuries in the road accident on 07.09.2022 at around 09.00 PM near SDM Office, New Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of M/cycle bearing no. BR 21Z 8628 being driven & owned by respondent no.1 (Driver-cum-owner) and insured with respondent no. 3 (sic
2) (Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd.) ? OPP (22) The petitioner/PW-1 supported the charge-sheet allegations vide his affidavit of evidence Ex.PW1/A maintaining that the accident took place solely due to rash and negligent Sh. Vijay Shankar Yadav Vs Sh. Ankit Kumar & Anr MACT No. 138/2024 Page No.8 of 24 driving on the part of the respondent no. 1. In his cross- examination conducted by Ld. counsel for the insurance company the petitioner/PW-1 stuck to his stand, deposing that he was not at fault nor was he drunk and firmly denied the suggestion that he contributed to the accident. (23) The respondent no. 1 driver cum owner never bothered to file his reply to the DAR and was set ex-parte. Thus, there is no contest or challenge on the part of the respondent no.1 to the averments on oath of the petitioner/PW-1. (24) At this juncture, it would be insightful to refer to the principles governing cases under Motor Accident Claim as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court from time to time. (25) In Anita Sharma & Ors Vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Anr AIR 2021 Supreme Court 302, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that strict principles of evidence and standards of proof like in a criminal trial are inapplicable in MACT claim cases. It was stressed that the standard of proof in such like matters is one of preponderance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt. It was further held that the approach and role of courts while examining evidence in accident claim cases ought not to be to find fault with non-examination of some best eye witnesses but instead to analyze the material placed on record by the parties to ascertain whether the claimant's version is more likely than not true. (26) Further, in Vimla Devi & Ors Vs National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors 1 (2019) 2 SCC 186, the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated that Motor Vehicles Act 1988 is enacted to give solace to the victims of motor vehicle accidents and relieves Sh. Vijay Shankar Yadav Vs Sh. Ankit Kumar & Anr MACT No. 138/2024 Page No.9 of 24 them from strict compliance provided in law which are otherwise applicable to suits and other proceedings. (27) In United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs Shila Datta (2011) 10 SCC 509, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that a claim petition under the MV Act is not a traditional adversarial lis and strict rules of pleadings or procedure do not apply to MACT proceedings.
(28) Thus, the burden of proof in MACT matters is even lesser than that required to be discharged in civil matters. (29) The petitioner has maintained his stance unflinchingly in his cross examination while on the other hand the respondent no. 1 has not bothered to even put forth his defence by way of a reply, let alone subject himself to the rigors of cross examination.
(30) In the case of the Chola Mandalam M. S. General Insurance Company Ltd Vs Kamlesh 2009 (3) AD Delhi 310 , it was held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that if the driver of the offending vehicle does not enter the witness box, an adverse inference can be drawn against him. In the instant case, as already noted above, the driver chose not to grace the witness box to rebut the claim of the petitioner or explain the circumstances of the accident hence an adverse inference is drawn against her.
(31) Furthermore, it was held in Mangla Ram Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors (2018) 5 SCC 656 that filing of the charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle prima facie points towards the complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly and the subsequent acquittal of the Sh. Vijay Shankar Yadav Vs Sh. Ankit Kumar & Anr MACT No. 138/2024 Page No.10 of 24 accused may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in motor vehicle accident cases. (32) In the present case also, the charge-sheet was filed against the respondent no. 1, who has not chosen to defend himself in any manner so it is not even his case that he has been falsely implicated in the present case.
(33) The petitioner was crossing the service lane road when the respondent driving his motorcycle hit the petitioner from the left due to which the petitioner sustained injuries. Pertinently, the presumption that the respondent no. 1 was driving at a high speed also arises for the reason that after hitting the pedestrian, the respondent no. 1 too fell down and sustained injuries, implying that he was driving at an uncontrollable speed. (34) The accident occurred not on a busy road but a service road where the respondent no. 1 was required to drive cautiously. Not only this, the respondent no. 1 apparently did not have a driving license at the time of the accident due to which Section 3/181 M.V. Act was invoked in the charge-sheet against him which in itself points to the negligence on the part of the respondent no. 1.
(35) All the above factors point clearly towards the negligence of the respondent no. 1 being the cause of the accident. The fact that grievous injuries were sustained by the petitioner in the duly established by the copy of the MLC which is part of the DAR Ex.PW1/2.
(36) The petitioner has amply established on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle Sh. Vijay Shankar Yadav Vs Sh. Ankit Kumar & Anr MACT No. 138/2024 Page No.11 of 24 number BR 21Z 8628 being driven and owned by the respondent no. 1 and concededly insured by the respondent no. 2. (37) Issue no. 1 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
Issue no. 2.
To what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled and from whom ? OPP (38) Certain principles for delineating just compensation were enumerated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Raj Kumar Vs Ajay Kumar & Ors (2011) 1 SCC 343 as follows -
"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 petitioner 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).
5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following :
Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising :
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Sh. Vijay Shankar Yadav Vs Sh. Ankit Kumar & Anr MACT No. 138/2024 Page No.12 of 24 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 petitioner, 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. Assessment of pecuniary damages under item (i) and under item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses - item (iii) -- depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages - items
(iv), (v) and (vi) -- involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the petitioner and the effect thereof on the future life of the petitioner."
(39) In the present case, no permanent disability has been claimed. The compensation to be awarded under different heads is now to be computed.
(40) The educational qualification and the income of the petitioner are important factors to consider for the purpose of ascertaining the just compensation under different heads. (41) The petitioner has not filed any documents pertaining to his educational qualification and has deposed that he works as a helper in BSES. No documents regarding salary or appointment letter have been filed by the petitioner in this regard nor has any witness from the employer's office been sought to be summoned by him.
(42) In such circumstances, in absence of any cogent proof regarding the educational qualification and salary of the Sh. Vijay Shankar Yadav Vs Sh. Ankit Kumar & Anr MACT No. 138/2024 Page No.13 of 24 petitioner he is required to be presumed to be illiterate uneducated and his income is required to be considered as equivalent to an unskilled worker with the Minimum Wages prescribed by the Government of NCT of Delhi during the relevant period when the accident took place, being applicable. (43) The minimum wage applicable at the relevant time were as per notification F. No. 12(142)/02 /MW/VII/Partfile /2618-264 dated 23.05.2022. For unskilled worker the minimum wage prescribed vide the aforesaid notification was Rs.16,064/- per month with per day rate being Rs. 635/-. Thus, the established income of the petitioner for the purpose of the present proceedings is to be considered as Rs.16,064/- per month.
Award towards medical expenses /treatment (44) The petitioner has claimed Rs. 7,218/- towards medical treatment. The medical bills were adduced in evidence by the petitioner as Ex.PW1/3 colly. No dispute qua the authenticity and veracity of said bills was raised by either of the respondents. The calculation of the petitioner however is incorrect as the petitioner has also sought the amount of Rs.1500/- qua the bill dated 16.09.2022 however the bill itself reflects the discount to be 100% i.e. Rs. 1500/- and bill amount as zero. The amount of the remaining two bills comes to Rs.5,718/-. Accordingly, the amount of Rs.5,718/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
Award qua conveyance (45) The petitioner has claimed to have spent Rs. 50,000/- towards conveyance but no bills qua the same have been filed. However, considering the nature of injuries sustained by Sh. Vijay Shankar Yadav Vs Sh. Ankit Kumar & Anr MACT No. 138/2024 Page No.14 of 24 the petitioner being grievous, it is reasonable to presume that some expenditure would have been incurred by the petitioner towards conveyance for visiting the hospital /doctor. The petitioner is therefore, granted Rs.10,000/- towards expenses incurred in conveyance.
Award qua Special Diet (46) There is no cogent evidence on record regarding the expenses incurred by the petitioner upon special diet, however considering the nature of injuries sustained, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner must have spent some amount under this head. Hence, compensation of Rs.10,000/- is granted towards expenses incurred on special diet.
Award qua attendant charges (47) Although, the petitioner has not adduced any evidence on record to show the expenses incurred by him towards attendant charges however, it is settled that even if a formal nursing attendant is not engaged, the services provided by family members also have to be fairly compensated. In light of the injury sustained by the petitioner an amount of Rs.10,000/- is awarded to the petitioner towards attendant charges.
Determination of Loss of income during treatment period (48) The petitioner was hospitalized the same day post the accident i.e. on 07.09.2022 and was discharged on the next day i.e. 08.09.2022. The petitioner deposed that he was on bed rest for four months but he conceded in his cross-examination conducted by Ld. counsel for the insurance company that he did not have any proof that he was unable to work for four months Sh. Vijay Shankar Yadav Vs Sh. Ankit Kumar & Anr MACT No. 138/2024 Page No.15 of 24 and also admitted the fact that he had not been advised four months rest by any doctor. The petitioner did not examine any witness from the department where he worked to establish that he actually remained on leave for such period. In such circumstances, the petitioner can only be awarded amount qua the actual days of hospitalization; as he was admitted on 07.09.2022 and discharged the next day. The number of working days lost would be taken as two. The per day minimum wage rate as prescribed by the Government of Delhi for the relevant time period was Rs.635/-. Hence an amount of Rs.1270/- (635 x 2) is awarded to the petitioner under this head towards loss of income for one day.
Award towards loss of amenities (49) The petitioner suffered grievous injuries but admittedly he did not suffer any permanent physical disability. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by him on account of which he would have been unable to enjoy the basic amenities of life temporarily, an amount of Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities of life.
Award on account of Pain & Suffering and Mental and Physical Shock (50) The mental and physical loss cannot always be arithmetically computed in terms of money. The object remains to compensate in so far as money can compensate. (51) In Nathu Lal Vs Sandeep Gulati & Ors MAC. APP. 770/2011 decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 21.05.2012 it was held thus -
"15. It is settled law that a particular amount cannot be fixed on pain and suffering for all cases as it varies Sh. Vijay Shankar Yadav Vs Sh. Ankit Kumar & Anr MACT No. 138/2024 Page No.16 of 24 from case to case. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that since the petitioner had got injuries/fracture as aforesaid, he might have suffered acute pain and sufferings owing to the said injuries. He might have also consumed heavy dose of antibiotic etc. and also might have remained without movements of his body for a considerable period of time. In order to ascertain the pain and sufferings compensation, I am guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case Satya Narain Vs Jai Kishan, FAO No. 709/02, date of decision 02.02.2007, wherein it was held that :- "On account of pain and suffering, suffice would it to note that it is difficult to measure pain and suffering in terms of a money value. However, compensation which has to be paid must bear some objective co- relation with the pain and suffering. The objective facts relatable to pain and suffering would be :
(a) Nature of injury
(b) Body part affected
(c) Duration of treatment (52) The petitioner has sustained grievous injuries in the accident. There is no methodology to quantify and measure the sufferings of the victim in terms of money but the object would be to place the victim in as near a position as he was before the accident. Hence, an amount of Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards pain and suffering and mental and physical shock. (53) Consequent to the discussion above, the compensation awarded to the petitioner is tabulated hereunder -
S.No Heads of Compensation Amount
.
1. Reimbursement of medical Rs.5,718/-
expenses
2. Compensation on account of NIL
Sh. Vijay Shankar Yadav Vs Sh. Ankit Kumar & Anr MACT No. 138/2024 Page No.17 of 24 future treatment
3. Pain and Suffering and Mental Rs.50,000/-
and Physical Shock
4. Loss of income during Rs.1,270/-
treatment period
5. Loss of amenities of life Rs.20,000/-
6. Special diet Rs.10,000/-
7. Attendant charges Rs.10,000/-
8. Conveyance Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs.1,06,988/-
Apportionment of Liability
(54) The respondent no. 2 Insurance Company proved its
defence that the respondent no. 1 was not having any driving license at the time of the accident through its witness R2W1 Sh. Daksh Arora who exhibited the notice issued to the respondent no. 1 under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC to produce valid driving license alongwith the postal receipt as Ex.R2W1/2 and Ex.R2W1/2. R2W1 testified that no such license was produced till date. These averments have gone unrebutted. As such the offence U/s 3/181 MV Act has been invoked against the respondent no. 1 in the charge-sheet filed so the onus was on him to discharge the liability of showing the existence of a valid and effective driving license which he miserably failed to do. In fact, Ld. counsel for the respondent no.1 conceded during the course of final arguments that the respondent no. 1 indeed was not having any driving license at the time of the accident. The act of the respondent no. 1 in driving the offending vehicle without any driving license constitutes a fundamental breach of the terms of the insurance policy.
(55) The question now is whether the principle of pay Sh. Vijay Shankar Yadav Vs Sh. Ankit Kumar & Anr MACT No. 138/2024 Page No.18 of 24 and recover as per the judgments cited by Ld. counsel for the petitioner in the written arguments i.e. K. Nagendra Vs The New India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 29.10.2025 and National Insurance Company Vs Jawahar Prasad Keshri @ Jawahar Shah & Ors decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 12.12.2025 is applicable or not.
(56) The fact of the matter is that the accident took place on 07.09.2022 i.e. after the coming into force of the amendment to Section 166 (3) MV Act with effect from 01.04.2022. The judgments cited by the petitioner respectfully, are not applicable since they pertain to accidents which took place prior to 01.04.2022.
(57) On the other hand, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Go Digit General Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Mohd. Javed through Shehnaz and Ors. MAC.APP. 416/2025 and CM Appl. 39671/2025 decided on 09.07.2025 observed in paragraph no. 5 as follows-
"5. So far as concerns the award of recovery rights, clearly that appears to be an inadvertent error by the learned Trial Court since, after the amendment to Section 166 (3) of the MV Act with effect from 01.04.2022 which is the provision for grant of recovery rights is no longer available in the statute book."
(58) This court is bound by the aforesaid observation of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The accident having occurred post the coming into effect of the amendment to Section 166 (3) MV Act, the principle of pay and recover is inapplicable and the respondent insurance company is required to be exonerated in Sh. Vijay Shankar Yadav Vs Sh. Ankit Kumar & Anr MACT No. 138/2024 Page No.19 of 24 view of the fundamental breach of the terms of the insurance policy committed by the respondent no. 1. (59) Thus, the liability to pay the award amount falls solely on the respondent no. 1 driver cum owner and the respondent no. 2 insurance company stands exonerated.
Relief -
(60) In view of the above discussion, an amount of Rs.1,06,988/- is awarded to the petitioner with simple interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till actual realization which shall be payable by the respondent no. 1 Ankit Kumar (driver cum owner).
(61) In case the interest of petitioner was stopped or excluded during the present enquiry proceedings, same is liable to be adjusted from the total interest calculated on the Award amount. Similarly, amount awarded and released as interim award if any, during pendency of the case, be deducted from the total compensation amount.
(62) Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No.842/2003 titled as "Rajesh Tyagi & Ors Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors." has formulated MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme) vide its order dated 07.12.2018 which was made effective from 01.01.2019.
(63) Keeping in mind the guidelines laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi , the respondent no. 1 is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs.1,06,988/- (Rupees One Lakh Six Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Eight Only) as stated herein above with State Bank of India, Saket District Court Branch, New Delhi in the MACT SOUTH SAKET COURT A/c Sh. Vijay Shankar Yadav Vs Sh. Ankit Kumar & Anr MACT No. 138/2024 Page No.20 of 24 42706751873 IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 in favour the petitioner(s)/applicant(s)/petitioner(s) as stated herein above under intimation to the petitioner and his counsel within a period of 30 days from the date of the passing of the award. The State Bank of India, Saket District Court Complex Branch, New Delhi is directed to disburse the amount in accordance with MACAD formulated by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
(64) Considering the financial statement of the petitioner recorded on 23.01.2026, Manager, State Bank of India, Saket District Court Branch, New Delhi is directed to release/disburse the entire amount of Rs.106,988/- (Rupees One Lakh Six Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Eight Only) immediately to the injured/petitioner in his bank account bearing no. 677802010012766 with Union Bank of India, Devli Branch, having IFSC Code - UBIN0567787.
(65) Nazir of this Court shall prepare a separate file regarding the status of deposition/non-deposition of the award amount by the respondent(s) after making necessary entry on CIS immediately.
(66) A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of cost through email.
(67) Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of 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)].
Sh. Vijay Shankar Yadav Vs Sh. Ankit Kumar & Anr MACT No. 138/2024 Page No.21 of 24 (68) Ahlmad shall also e-email an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Saket District Court Complex Branch, New Delhi for information. (69) File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance. Separate file be prepared for compliance and be put up on 16.05.2026.
Digitally
signed by
Announced in the open Court Anjani
Anjani
mahajan
today i.e. 16th of February, 2026 mahajan Date:
2026.02.16
16:31:22
+0530
(ANJANI MAHAJAN)
Presiding Officer : MACT (S)
Saket Courts : New Delhi
16.02.2026
Sh. Vijay Shankar Yadav Vs Sh. Ankit Kumar & Anr MACT No. 138/2024 Page No.22 of 24 FORM-XVI SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE
1. Date of accident : 07.09.2022
2. Name of the injured : Vijay Shankar Yadav
3. Age of the injured : 46 years
4. Occupation of the injured : Presently unemployed
5. Income of the injured : Earlier Rs. 16,064/- per month
6. Nature of injury : Grievous injury
7. Medical treatment taken : Yes
8. Period of Hospitalization : 1 day
9. Whether any permanent disability ?
If yes, give details : No.
10. Computation of Compensation
S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss :-
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs.5,718/-
(ii) Expenditure on Rs.10,000/-
conveyance
(iii) Expenditure on special Rs.10,000/-
diet
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs.10,000/-
(v) Loss of earning capacity Rs.1,270/-
(vi) Loss of Income NIL
(vii) Any other loss which NIL
may require any special
treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his
life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss :-
(i) Compensation for mental Rs.50,000/-
and physical shock and
Pain and Suffering
(ii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.20,000/-
(iii) Dis-figuration NA
(iv) Loss of marriage NA
prospects
(v) Loss of earning, NA
inconvenience,
hardships,
disappointment,
Sh. Vijay Shankar Yadav Vs Sh. Ankit Kumar & Anr MACT No. 138/2024 Page No.23 of 24 frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity :-
(i) Percentage of disability NA
assessed and nature of
disability as permanent
or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss -
of expectation of life
span on account of
disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of -
earning capacity in
relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income NA
and earning capacity
14. TOTAL Rs.1,06,988/-
COMPENSATION
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9% per annum
16. Interest amount up to the @9% per annum
date of award
17. Total amount including to be calculated @ 9% per
interest annum
18. Award amount released Rs.1,06,988/-
19. Award amount kept in NA
FDRs
20. Mode of disbursement of Mentioned in the award
the award amount to the
petitioner (s).
21. Next date for compliance 16.05.2026
of the award.
Digitally
signed by
Anjani
Anjani mahajan
mahajan Date:
2026.02.16
16:31:29
+0530
(ANJANI MAHAJAN)
Presiding Officer : MACT (S)
Saket Courts : New Delhi
16.02.2026
Sh. Vijay Shankar Yadav Vs Sh. Ankit Kumar & Anr MACT No. 138/2024 Page No.24 of 24